On Thu, September 6, 2012 19:58, Hans Polzer wrote:
> .... I've made note of
> this issue in past emails to this forum regarding the notion of
> "conceptual
> reality" being distinct from physical reality. A school district or police
> precinct doesn't exist in physical reality - there are no physical
> phenomenologies that can be used to "detect" or "sense" such an object.
> Sure, such a conceptual object can be mapped to some geospatial extent -
> although some "districts" might not be geospatial at all - but evidence
> for its existence is manifest only on paper (or cyberspace),
> and can be changed
> on a (institutional) whim. It is a creation of society, and no physical
> entity is directly affected or modified in any way by its creation. (01)
Well stated. (02)
-- doug foxvog (03)
> Hans
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andries van
> Renssen
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:40 PM
> To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>
> Doug,
>
> Why is a school district not physical? In my view it is a physical area on
> earth with an (unspecified) height and depth.
> Physical object (and spatial objects) cannot be located in themselves, but
> they all can be in (several) locator as well as in located roles, although
> always in different (individual) relations.
>
> I am interested in your subtypes of the <being location in> kind of
> relation.
>
> The kind of relation <classification of an individual thing by a kind of
> thing> is semantically different from the kind of relation
> thing> <classification
> of a kind of thing by a meta kind of thing> as the role players are
> different.
> In the example, the relation <is classified as a> is a phrase for the
> first
> kind of relation.
> Furthermore, the statement is that all individual things 'shall be'
> classified, whereas that is not required for kinds of things. Kinds of
> things shall not necessarily be classified, but 'shall be' generalized, by
> being defined as subtypes of their supertype(s).
> Therefore, the term 'individual' is an important semantic distinction.
> If we eliminate it the semantic precision would be lost.
>
> In the other case of the use of 'individual' the sentence was taken out of
> contexts, because the original text talks about two basic semantic
> structures, one for facts about individual things and another for facts
> about kinds of things. So also here the term 'individual' marks an
> essential
> semantic distinction.
>
> I agree that a taxonomy is a hierarchical subtype-supertype network.
>
> I also agree that each individual thing can (in principle) be classified
> by
> more than one kind of thing.
>
> With kind regards,
> Till after my holidays,
> Andries
>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
>> Verzonden: donderdag 6 september 2012 7:29
>> Aan: [ontolog-forum]
>> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>>
>> On Wed, September 5, 2012 12:47, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>> > What's not to like about this excerpt:
>> >
>> > "In its simplest form, this is a structure that is also supported by
>> > technologies, such as _RDF_ and _OWL_. However, a semantic model
>> > includes the following semantic extensions that support an improved
>> > computer interpretation of such sentences and an improved
>> computerized
>> > verification of semantic correctness:
>>
>> Fine.
>>
>> > * Each kind of relation has a modeled definition. Those semantic
>> > definitions of the relation type includes the definition of the
>> required
>> > kinds of roles and the allowed kinds of players of such roles.
>>
>> Fine.
>>
>> > For
>> > example, the relation type <is located in> requires a physical
>> > object
>> in
>> > a 'locator' role and another physical object in a 'located' role.
>>
>> There are many kinds of "is located in" relations which are useful to
>> tease apart. A more useful, more generic, form would require a
>> spatial object in both the 'locator' and 'located' role. Non-physical
>> spatial objects (such as school districts or police precincts) could
>> be in either the 'locator' or 'located' role with such a predicate.
>>
>> I would suggest that the example refer to a "spatial object" instead
>> of a "physical object".
>>
>> > * Each individual thing is classified by a kind of thing, because
>> > the meaning of a relation between individual things can only be
>> interpreted
>> > correctly when each related individual thing is classified, as well
>> as
>> > the roles they play and the relation they have.
>>
>> I would strike the word "individual", since kinds of things (e.g.,
>> CanusLupus)
>> can also be classified by kinds of (meta) things (e.g.,
>> BiologicalSpecies).
>>
>> I would also clarify this by noting that each thing can be classified
>> by one or more kinds of things.
>>
>> > * The kinds of things are defined by at least a relation with their
>> > supertype kinds of things,
>>
>> Fine.
>>
>> > thus forming a taxonomy of concepts (a
>>
>> The word "taxonomy" suggests a tree structure. This should be
>> clarified to make clear that a directed acyclic graph is a valid
>> specialization hierarchy.
>>
>> > specialization hierarchy, also called a subtype-supertype hierarchy).
>> > This is necessary for the interpretation of the meaning of the
>> > classifiers (city, tower, and 'is located in', as well as 'locator'
>> and
>> > 'located').
>>
>> > This results in a universal basic semantic data structure for the
>> > expression of facts about individual things."
>>
>> Again, i'd strike the word "individual".
>>
>> -- doug foxvog
>>
>> > Source: http://www.gellish.net/topics/semantic-modelling.html .
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Kingsley Idehen
>> > Founder & CEO
>> > OpenLink Software
>> > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog:
>> > http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > 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/
>> 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/
> 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
>
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|