ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] 3D+1 (was presentism...was blah blah blah)

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Yu Lin <linikujp@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:38:20 -0500
Message-id: <AANLkTin+S4aB0nGQ62e85fUzRtBErcKn60OLRa-wN=sA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> (Mary at t) has (a temperature 100f at t)
That is good point!
Thanks.    (01)

> We can probably quite successfully *talk* about ontology without any
> knowledge of logic, but as you set off to *formalize* your ontology --
> and this seems to be your goal -- not knowing logic is rather an
> obstacle.  (That's why I'm not doing ontology, for that matter.)
Good point also.
So please work on it and let us be able to "formalize" our ontologies
by using successful logic theory.    (02)

Regards,
Asiyah    (03)


On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk <waku@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/4/11 11:10 AM, Yu Lin wrote:
>>> What I said was that I don't know what the timestamp you mention would be:
>> Sorry,
>> An instance in BFO has a timestamp.
>> For example:
>> In BFO, a Patient has a Quality of Elevated Temperature. (Capital
>> letter in the first letter means the Class) [in this statement, all in
>> class level, so there is no timestamp]
>> for instantiate :
>>   1. Mary (instance of Patient) had a temperature measured as 100F at
>> 16:43:00 2001/01/11
>>   2. Mary (same instance in 1) had a temperature measured as 90F at
>> 12:00:00 2001/01/12
>>
>> I hope I make it clear for you.
>
> Not really.  If *every* instance has a timestamp, I'd expect something like
>
> (Mary at t) has (a temperature 100f at t)
>
> because that temperature seems to be, in this framework, an *iinstance*
> of the class Quality of Elevated Temperature.
>
>> PS: I just know a little bit about logic. I have searched "IKL logic".
>> There is a slide of Pat on internet.
>> http://www.slideshare.net/PatHayes/ikl-presentation-for-ontolog (3
>> years ago)
>>
>> I hope our communication can talk more on ontology as someone
>> mentioned in another mail.
>
> We can probably quite successfully *talk* about ontology without any
> knowledge of logic, but as you set off to *formalize* your ontology --
> and this seems to be your goal -- not knowing logic is rather an
> obstacle.  (That's why I'm not doing ontology, for that matter.)
>
> vQ
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (05)

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