On 7/11/2011 4:16 AM, David Leal wrote:
> With a very loose RDF-type meaning of "property", this use
> of the term is OK... (01)
That is why I do not recommend RDF -- or many other needlessly
complicated notations and the baggage they drag along. (02)
> A von Mises's equivalent stress may be a physical property of a
> body B at a point P, but it is surely not a physical property of the
> stress tensor. Instead it is derivable from the stress tensor by a
> mathematical operation. It so happens that this derived quantity has
> a physical meaning - it is a predictor of plastic flow. (03)
That paragraph uses a lot of specialized terminology from the
subject matter. That is the way that a subject matter expert
talks, and the ontology should stay as close as possible to
the terminology used by the SME. (04)
Words like 'property', 'attribute', 'feature', 'facet', etc.,
all map to one-place predicates or relations in logic. (05)
Therefore, I would only use *one* metalevel word. In Common Logic,
that word is 'relation'. Everything maps to a relation. (06)
Bottom line: When you talk about the ontology for a subject,
you should only use the terminology of that subject. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|