ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA Ontolog

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Michael Gruninger <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:57:59 -0500
Message-id: <4D10F8B7.7030800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 10-12-21 11:33 AM, Christopher Menzel wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Michael Gruninger wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
> Hey, Michael.
>
>> this example is not so clear-cut,
> I think it is -- in the context. ;-)
>
>> since there it is possible to interpret these statements within a process 
>ontology such as PSL:
>>
>>  Jack and John are instances of Actor
>>  Task is an subclass of Activity
>>  WashWindows is an instance of Task
>>  PushWashButton is an instance of Task
>>  there is an occurrence of WashWindows done by John
>>  there is an occurrence of PushWashButton done by Jack
> I think, as a description of the operation in question, you'd want to say 
>that *every* occurrence of WashWindows/PushWashButton is done by John/Jack.  
>(Indeed, it might even be false at the moment that there are any such 
>occurrences, since the ontology might be describing task assignments in a 
>planned operation rather than a currently functioning operation.)
>
>> Admittedly, there is no explicit process ontology in the original example 
>that employs the distinction between activities and their occurrences,
> But I think that is exactly the problem.  The document is explicit about the 
>ontological resources available and there simply *is* no process ontology 
>therein, implicit or otherwise.  Thus, of the ontological categories they 
>provide, the only possible one into which WashWindows and PushWashButton can 
>coherently fit is CLASS.  Hence, given the background ontology, it was a 
>mistake for them to classify those objects as instances of TASK rather than as 
>subclasses thereof.
>> but my point is that there is no need to say that WashWindows and 
>PushWashButton are classes.
> Of course, given a richer ontology.  So I'd put your point a bit differently: 
>by adding a proper process ontology like PSL to the ontology described in the 
>document, TASK could be conceptualized as a class of general activity objects 
>and, hence, WashWindows and PushWashButton could be conceptualized as 
>instances of, rather than subclasses of, TASK.
>
> Cheers!
>
> -chris
>
Hi Chris,    (01)

yes, that is what I wanted to say, and I was going to add a modified set 
of axioms along the way,
but I had just finished marking final exams and was feeling a little 
light-headed :-)    (02)

- michael    (03)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>