I think you would need a lot of conceptual clarity at the top-end
partitioning of the ontology. For example one could (at least in
English) state that the payment date for the regular interest payment on
a bond is, by definition, a kind of "Date". However it's nothing like
the kind of date that's described using a trimmed down Date Time Group
or similar datatype. It could for example be "The 27th of every February
and August, except when this is a non working day when it rolls forward
to the next working date (as defined in the holiday calendar for New
York State); except if that causes it to fall into the subsequent month
in which case the payment falls on the preceding working day". It's
still a day and some people would be tempted to make it a sub-class
either of Day or Date (or there would be people who would do both). That
could lead to some interesting failures I think. With the right
partitioning this sort of term is not an issue at all, but I think there
could be issues with people knowing when to use what kind of
partitioning to avoid these kinds of issue. (01)
Mike (02)
Duane Nickull wrote:
> 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
> (03)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|