Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chris wrote:
> “I think all they have in mind are cases where the same concept is indicated by different type *names*, e.g., "woodchuck" and "groundhog".”
Chris:

This is what I had originally thought of too and wanted to clarify.  The particular use case I had in mind was that of the concept of “date”.  Date could be defined as a temporal-spatial point and represented by currently used labels.  In the UN/CEFACT work, this became a primitive type for the core business components.  

The issue that came up was that the notion of date as a concept seemed to be unusable (and hence abstract) until it was applied to a taxonomy.  At that time, additional details of the date created a highly specialized concept that was only grounded in the high level concept with a relationship that could best be summed up as “<specialized date> is a sub-class of <abstract date>” which is fine.  A specific example could be that if a <date> element was used in an XML Purchase Order, the semantics of the path \\PurchaseOrder\BuyerParty\DateOdered were different from the semantics of \\PurcahseOrder\SellerParty\MustShipByDate (of course XML has nothing to do with semantics but I used these terms based on what English people might infer) even though both are subclasses of the abstract “date” concept.

I wanted to clarify whether or not a conflict of this type would exist if we had two supposedly similar types that tried to represent the concept of “date”.  The specialized types of dates discussed above that might exist in a business taxonomy surely all seem to be directly subclassed from the conceptual date.  Would a taxonomic or ontological class that was classed as “geo-temporal index” (representing a spatial-temporal point) be in conflict with date of the two are essentially representing the same conceptual animal?  That would seem to be the anti-pattern of an ontology – to have the same concept represented by two different types, each using different terms.

I hope I understood all that...

Duane


On 3/10/10 8:50 AM, "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 2010, at 1:35 AM, Matthew West wrote:
> > [Duane wrote:]
> >> For the second of these (conflicts when the same concept is represented by different types), can you elaborate a couple of examples (no hurry).  I just want to make sure I have a good idea of this.
> >
> > MW: Well I guess representing something that exists in space-time as a 3D or 4D individual would count.
>
> I don't think it's that subtle -- moreover, I don't think I would count your interesting example as a case of the same concept being represented by different types (or whatever), since it doesn't seem to me that "3D-individual" and "4D-individiual" *are* the same concept.  
>
> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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

---
Adobe LiveCycle Enterprise Architecture - http://www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/
My TV Show - http://tv.adobe.com/show/duanes-world/
My Blog – http://technoracle.blogspot.com/ 
My Band – http://22ndcenturyofficial.com/ 
Twitter – http://twitter.com/duanechaos



_________________________________________________________________
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)