Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology modules and namespaces

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Mathew and Chris,

 

I think that was a very interesting discussion!   We do have some examples from traditional modeling world.      ( class room kind of examples..)

 

For example,   A Supervisor is an employee himself,  and he has staff ( group of employees ) working for him!  Which creates a  one to many relationship !

 

A meetup of Meetups has similar modeling notations..

 

About your previous slides..  and the exmaples of Table.

 

At a conceptual level ( Ontology)  I would just have a  superclass, a class of "Furniture"

with subclass as  Tables, Chairs, upholstry  and the rest in the list..  and relationships..

 

As one can see, Class "Furniture" can be generic and standardazised with a set of generic subclasses and generic relationhips..    if one does not include the exceptions, at this level, I would find that acceptable. it can be done at a detail level.. as long as superclass covers all..    However, if one finds  the exceptions or the special types ear;y, then can include as notes with explanation, it would help at a detail level.

 

 

At a detail design  level - which is  logical and physical, I would include further details and exceptional or special types etc..    But at a detail level of design, if this step is overlooked, it causes either design flaws or  difficult coding to cover it up.   ( its just bad design..)

 

Note: I am sending this a comments only.

 

Regargds,

Pavithra

 

 

--- On Wed, 10/28/09, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology modules and namespaces
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 4:27 AM

Dear Chris,

Thanks for confirming my comments. Nice to know I've learnt something
along the way.

I was intrigued by this:

> That they have powertypes in
> particular is suggestive of full higher-order logic, but again it's
> just a label without a semantics, so there is no way to know.

I have an interest in powertypes too, so could you tell me how
powertypes can make an ontology higher order, and whether it is possible
(and or desirable) to avoid this.

Regards

Matthew West                           
Information  Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.





_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)