Monday, September 05, 2011 3:18 PM, Doug wrote:
"Azamat is correct in stating
> ... "the
> class membership relationship is not transitive, while the class inclusion
> is transitive."
> In fact, ((P isElementOf U) and (U isSubsetOf C) => (P isElementOf C) =
he appeared to mean
((P isElementOf U) and (U isElementOf C) => (P isElementOf C) = false).
which is correct." (01)
Thank you, Doug. That was exactly the meaning of the message. (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal and categories in BFO & DOLCE (03)
> On Sun, September 4, 2011 6:48, Patrick Browne said:
>> 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.
> DOLCE *does* use "category" (often with the modifier "basic") to denote
> its upper level universals (see page 14 of "WonderWeb Deliverable D18"
> http://www.loa-cnr.it/Papers/D18.pdf ). They distinguish "universals"
> from "particulars":
> "The ontological distinction between <i>universals</i> and
> <i>particulars</i> can be characterised by means of the primitive
> relation of <i>instantiation</i>: particulars are entities that
> cannot have instances; universals are entities that can have
> As John suggests, for ontological purposes, it is probably best not to
> use the terms "universals" and "particulars". But for the rest of this
> comment, i will use those terms to denote DOLCE's use of them, since
> the question appears to be about understanding DOLCE.
>> Below are some assumptions, followed by two questions.
>> 1. Categories are classes (sets?) of high level generic entities e.g.
>> Physical Object
> As John said, classes are not sets.
> So long as you understand that the entities which are instances of a
> category or class may themselves be classes, this is correct for DOLCE
> (with the parenthetical question removed).
>> 2. Universals are classes (sets?) of particulars e.g. Country
> Same answer.
>> 3. Particulars are individual instantiations of universals e.g. Ireland
> If by "individual", you mean "particular", yes. Note that
> instantiations of universals are NOT universals.
>> 4. Categories are organized using subsumption hierarchies (sub-set
> Correct, if the parenthetical term is removed.
> John is correct in dismissing the equivalence of "sub-set".
> Unlike John, i do not mind the use of the term "subsumption".
> His "subtype" or subclass are more specific terms; binary and higher-
> order predicates can also be arranged in subsumption hierarchies although
> not in subtype/subclass hierarchies.
>> 5. Universals are organized using subsumption hierarchies (sub-set
> Same answer.
>> 6. Particulars are elements of Universals (element-of or set-membership
> Remove the "or set-membership" and this is correct.
> Note that not all elements of Universals are Particulars. Some are
> Universals. As Asmat noted, instances of the (biological) Species
> universal are types of living things, not particular living things.
>> 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?
> Since categories are universals, categories can not be higher
> on the subsumption tree than universals. DOLCE basic categories
> are at the upper level, but intermediate universals are not
>> 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) .
> This is false, since (U isSubsetOf C) is false. I suggest you mean:
> ((P isInstanceOf U) and (U isSubClassOf C) => (P isInstanceOf C) = true)
> which is correct.
> Azamat is correct in stating
>> ... "the
>> class membership relationship is not transitive, while the class
>> is transitive."
> although by
>> In fact, ((P isElementOf U) and (U isSubsetOf C) => (P isElementOf C) =
> he appeared to mean
> ((P isElementOf U) and (U isElementOf C) => (P isElementOf C) = false).
> which is correct.
> -- doug foxvog
>> I posted a similar query to the BFO mailing list 
>> Pat Browne
>> This message has been scanned for content and viruses by the DIT
>> Information Services E-Mail Scanning Service, and is believed to be
>> 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
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
> - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
> 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
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 (05)