|To:||doug@xxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:51:13 -0400|
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:34 PM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, September 6, 2012 06:40, Andries van Renssen wrote:
nothing “really is” a class or an object or an association. All modeling is also design.
In my example, I said, “there exists an instance b of the between relation B”
This means that b is an individual thing. (to be is to be the value of a bound variable_).
in higher order logic, which is often how people think, also every relation IS a thing. (for all relations R, ....)
modeling categories you and others choose are not what something “really is”; you are imposing your own form, casting the concept as a category of thing) for your own good purposes. Good casting into a model element type depends on your viewpoint and purpose.
For example, a given ‘thing’, like the book
Moby Dick, can be cast in several ways, from different viewpoints, and
for different purposes. It is an
individual instance, of the type ‘novel’;
it is a class of editions, each of which
is an individual edition; each edition is a class of copies of that edition,
which are then the individual things; and each "copy" is 'really' a class of observations in
an identity equivelence class relation with each other. And, each observation ...... Yet, it would be silly to do all of this in one sitting. Take a viewpoint and a purpose, and then the 'things' you see pop out.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, doug foxvog|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, Andries van Renssen|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, doug foxvog|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, doug foxvog|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|