Lainaus "John F Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>: (01)
> I would never write anything like that in my book. I admit abstract
> things like measures in the ontology, and I introduce triadic relations,
> such as hasMeasure(x, y, kg). I also define the measure kg by saying
> that one can choose some object whose mass is defined to be 1 kg.
> Then the relation hasMeasure(x, y, kg) can be determined by comparing
> the object x to the object that defines the standard measure of 1 kg
> by using some appropriate mechanism that computes the ratio y to 1.
> This explanation avoids the terms 'universal', 'particular', 'property',
> 'trope', 'property-particular', and 'property-constituent dichotomy'.
> The only place where such terms would occur in my book is in a glossary
> of obsolete terms that one might accidentally bump into. (02)
I understand that your book concerns ontologies that can be used in
computer applications in deduction/inference. Then again, properties
and particulars are needed in ontologies which directly concern the
measurable reality. (03)
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)