On Thu, September 6, 2012 12:51, William Frank wrote:
> 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: (01)
>> > AR: All occurrences (activities, processes and events) are basically
>> > higher arity relations (interactions between things). (02)
>> DF: I would disagree. Occurrences are first class objects. Higher (or
>> not) arity relations can describe aspects of such occurrences. (03)
> nothing “really is” a class or an object or an association. All modeling
> is also design. (04)
Agreed. The same applies to occurrences being relations, which is what
i was responding to. (05)
> In my example, I said, “there exists an instance b of the between relation
> B” (06)
> This means that b is an individual thing. (to be is to be the value of a
> bound variable_). (07)
Nothing "really is" a value. 8)# Except values.
I presume you mean that anything that exists can be referred to by a
bound variable. (08)
> in higher order logic, which is often how people think, also every
> relation IS a thing. (for all relations R, ....) (09)
With an appropriate definition of "thing", sure. I would like this
discussion
to differentiate between relations, statements of relations applied to
arguments, and the meaning of such statements. Perhaps we could
call them "relations", "relation statements", and "relationships". (010)
> 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. (011)
Agreed. (012)
> For example, a given ‘thing’, like the book *Moby Dick*, can be cast in
> several ways, from different viewpoints, and for different purposes. (013)
Below you refer to multiple related thing which the phrase could refer to. (014)
There are several good ontologies prying apart such concepts. (015)
> It is an individual instance, of the type ‘novel’; (016)
A type of "propositional conceptual work". (017)
> it is a class of editions, (018)
Normally, one doesn't use the phrase to refer to the class. (019)
> each of which is an individual edition; (020)
a "textually specific work" (021)
> each edition is a class (022)
Normally, one doesn't use the phrase to refer to the class.
+ He read a Moby Dick. *
However, in other cases, the name of a PCW can be used to refer to the
class:
+ He read a Bible. (023)
> of copies of that edition, which are then the individual things; (024)
instances of "information bearing thing" (025)
> and each
> "copy" is 'really' a class of observations in an identity equivelence
> class relation with each other. (026)
By "class of observations" are you referring to the information content?
+ In Moby Dick the whale kills Captain Ahab. (027)
I wouldn't say that a copy, edition, class of editions, or conceptual work
was the information content. Each would bear a different relation to
that information content. (028)
> 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. (029)
Before doing so, check out the prior work on the subject. (030)
-- doug foxvog (031)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (032)
|