Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture - Example ofBed vs

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

( sorry edited,..)

Dr. Sowa,

I agree in 4D there are changes. Babies are in pediatric nursery / Juvenile area.  A 20 year old outgrows that.

But  the example that Dough used, the term "Bed" for location of an inmate is simple.   Because of Bunk Beds, same physical location can have multiple inmates.  Bed is the only unique real world thing that provides linear ( one to one ) relationship for an inmate.  I think that is the reason they use the word Bed which means location assigned to the inmates.  

Dwelling in Canada is an interesting example as well.    There is no way of tracking people who live in the streets of third world countries.  

Pavithra Kenjige

--- On Mon, 8/30/10, Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture - Example ofBed vs Cell and reasoning!
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, August 30, 2010, 7:49 AM

Dr. Sowa,

I agree in 4D there are changes. Babies are in pediatric nursery / Juvenile area.  A 20 year old outgrows that.

However, But the example the Dough used, Bed for location is simple.   Because oif Bunk Beds, same location can have mulitple inmates.  Bed is the only unique real world thing that provides linear ( one to one ) relationship.  I think that is the reason they use the word Bed which means location assigned to the inmates.  

Dwelling in Canada is an interesting example as well.    There is no way of tracking people who live in the streets of third world countries.  

Pavithra Kenjige

--- On Sun, 8/29/10, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture - Example ofBed vs Cell and reasoning!
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, August 29, 2010, 6:07 PM

Doug, Ferenc, Pavithra, and Jack,

DMcD> Thanks for this statement, John. It helps amplify the point I
> made on the Enterprise Architecture  forum on LinkedIn...

I'm glad that it helps.

(But by the way, your point shows why I don't use LinkedIn. Ontolog
Forum is open to everybody, and it is indexed by all the search
engines.  LinkedIn blocks open sharing.  I don't like that.)

DMcD> Instead of efforts to nail down the one true meaning of some term,
> I believe it is more helpful to open up proliferations of meaning-
> capture for more complete understandings of the domains being
> subjected to various well-meaning interventions.

I strongly agree.

FK> the inheritance of a property is obvious, nothing to write home about.

I agree.  But that is true of all rules of inference in logic:
modus ponens; substituting a value for a universally quantified
variable; or noting that A&B is equivalent to B&A.

The repeated combination of a lot operations that are trivial
and obvious can sometimes add up to something significant.
But I admit that they might not be significant.  For example,

          On Selecting a Thesis Topic

                By Henry Kautz

      If your thesis is utterly vacuous,
      Use first-order predicate calculus.
          With sufficient formality
          The sheerest banality
      Will be hailed by all as miraculous.

      If your thesis is quite indefensible,
      Reach for semantics intensional.
          Over Montague grammar
          Your committee will stammer
      Not admitting it's incomprehensible.

PK> When there is a one to one relationship between things, and such
> terms are used in an interchangeable way, it does not cause any
> design problem with accuracy .. but need semantic explanation.

I agree.  But terms that are subtly different may be interchangeable
in one application, but not in another.  For example, consider a baby
at one point in time and the "same" individual 20 years later.

JR> Could it be that we have not included context-based 'nyms' in our
> ontologies because of the difficulties encountered in processing
> them with von Neumann computers?  Will the advent of massively
> parallel processors that can mesh nets efficiently open ontology
> design thinking and practice?

Different algorithms and reasoning methods can address many of
these issues.  I'll admit that parallel hardware can open up
new methods that were impractical with older technology.  But
a lot can be done with better ways of using current hardware.

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@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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_________________________________________________________________
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)