[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Rough Sets

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:57:23 -0600
Message-id: <9019ED71-F431-4895-99BD-90BECBDFC200@xxxxxxxx>
On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
Hi Azamat and Chris,
Shame on those who claim that Thing can be a Class and an Instance at the same time!  Only multiple inheritance modelers would even face that issue in the first place.  I am not a C++ fan.

Rich, this is not a matter of who claims what. It is simply a fact that there are languages that support self-membered classes and likewise a fact that there ontologies in those languages in which Thing is a class.  Once again, you might prefer not to use such languages or avail yourself of such ontologies but, unless you can up with an objection to them that is far more cogent and rigorous than that you are "not a fan", it is just silly to try to "shame" those who prefer them.

In addition, your reference to C++ here suggests you might be confusing programming languages with knowledge representation languages. As does your talk of programs, creation, destruction, etc: 

The Delphi VCL classes descend from TClass and TObject separately.  TObject is not an instance of TClass, so that every instance of TClass is an actual TClass, and every instance of a TObject is a TObject, and ne’er the twain shall hook up.  
Only refinement processes tease out the actual classes and instances.  A program comprises a graph of refined classes and each class has a suite of instances, varying in time of creation and destruction as to definition of each instance at time t.  
But its messy to use iterations of any kind of instances if you cant discern the difference between a class and an instance.  Those infinities can be pesky, but they sure show up in the real world.
Restrict your database to entities (dynamic) and properties (static) and you can organize it better.  Expand into philosophically interesting directions and get problems.  

And this (not that I find it at all clear) suggests that you are confusing a database theory with model theory.

The choice is clear to me.

From your perspective, given both what you know and what you don't, that may be true.  But, instead of "shaming" those who adopt approaches that seem wrong-headed to you, maybe you could take it as a sign that there is something new for you to learn.


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)

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