Dear Matthew,
I realize that I made a poor choice of name for the relation
(namedEntity p s), which relates points to strings. My ontology
didn't have any notion of entity or name, but the term 'namedEntity'
suggested that I was thinking about names and entities.
Instead, I'll replace that relation with (tag p s), which indicates
that the observer is tagging points
with strings. The neutral term
'tag' avoids any assumptions about why the observer was tagging
those points.
Following are the three observation statements in my revised ontology:
(exists (p t1) (and (tag p "Kermit") (egg p) (coord p 4 t1)))
(exists (p t2) (and (tag p "Kermit") (tadpole p) (coord p 4 t2)))
(exists (p t3) (and (tag p "Kermit") (frog p) (coord p 4 t3)))
The relations named egg, tadpole, and frog should not be considered
references to "things" of type egg, tadpole, or frog. Instead, they
are merely records of observations about patterns.
For example, the relation (red p) says that a pattern of redness
is observed at point p. Similarly, (frog p) merely says that
a pattern of frogness is observed at point p. It does not make
any assumption about the existence of entities of type frog.
John
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxShared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1JTo Post: mailto:
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx