I am trying to establish whether BFO and DOLCE use the same set
theoretic semantics when formalizing the terms universal and category.
AFAIK DOLCE is an ontology of particulars and universals are not
formally part of the representational artifact, but they nonetheless
occur in practice. (01)
Below are some assumptions, followed by two questions.
1. Categories are classes (sets?) of high level generic entities e.g.
2. Universals are classes (sets?) of particulars e.g. Country
3. Particulars are individual instantiations of universals e.g. Ireland
4. Categories are organized using subsumption hierarchies (sub-set
5. Universals are organized using subsumption hierarchies (sub-set
6. Particulars are elements of Universals (element-of or set-membership
Question 1: In DOLCE is the relationship between Categories and
Universals also a subsumption relation, with the caveat the categories
are higher up the hierarchy than universals?
Question 2: In DOLCE could it be the case a particular could be an
element of a universal and an element of a category as follows:
((P isElementOf U) and (U isSubsetOf C) => (P isElementOf C) = true) . (03)
I posted a similar query to the BFO mailing list  (04)
This message has been scanned for content and viruses by the DIT Information
Services E-Mail Scanning Service, and is believed to be clean. http://www.dit.ie (07)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (08)