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)
|