On Wed, September 26, 2012 17:23, David C. Hay wrote:
> OK, I went into your description of Cyc in a bit more detail,
> and I fear I must disagree on one point.
> I apologize for having been so careless. (01)
> Apparently Cyc puts this constraint on a Geographic Location: (02)
You mean on Geographical Region. (03)
>> In all cases the region in question must contain some tangible component
>> with which it is possible to make physical contact. The instances of
>> GeographicalRegion contrast in this respect with the instances of
>> GeographicalThing-Intangible, which are wholly intangible. (04)
> Why would they do that? (05)
Geographical Regions are bits of terrain, not locations. They have
locations & there are predicates to specify the location of geographical
regions. (06)
> To combine the tangibleness of a geographic
> location with the definition of it clogs the definitions. (07)
Of course. Those are separate things in Cyc. (08)
> It is not in (as we data types call it) even first normal form. (09)
> I guess I was wrong in the previous note. My Geographic Location
> would be a "Geographical Thing-Intangible." (010)
Correct. (011)
> I have no reason to describe a "Geographical Thing-Tangible". (012)
No Mountain, Valley, Field, Urban Area, Plot of Land, ...? (013)
-- doug foxvog (014)
> Dave (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|