ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Andries van Renssen" <andries.vanrenssen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:12:28 +0200
Message-id: <003401cda638$e249a8f0$a6dcfad0$@vanrenssen@gellish.net>
Hans and Doug,    (01)

Thanks for your extensive response. I think I now understand your 'conceptual 
reality' concept.
I don't know whether you coined the term or whether some earlier (possibly 
famous) philosopher created it. But my impression is that
it is a bit a 'container' concept.
In your response you state that you use the concept 'to capture those aspects 
of reality that...'. 
I think that is useful, but why would you not call most of the examples that 
you mention just (non-physical) 'aspects'? (although
some other examples seem to be relationships).
Not all aspects and relationships are indeed directly physically detectable. 
For example, ownership, (legal) right, esthetical value
(beauty), economic value, etc. But they are aspects of something that is a 
physical object or they are a relationship with a
physical object (e.g. ownership).
Thus such non-physical aspects are nevertheless aspects of physical objects.
I would say that such aspects and relationships are a reality, although their 
basis is not in the physical domain, but in the legal,
economic or esthetical domain. These aspects even appear to be related to other 
aspects that are physical. For example, beauty may
be related to (and dependent on) shape and color. That reality is not just 
'conceptual'. I listed a basic number of (non-physical)
aspects in my PhD (par. 3.2.5 page 59).    (02)

Furthermore, in my view your use of surrogate relation and manifestation 
relation remains unclear.
During the war we had surrogate sugar, but it was one physical object that was 
a surrogate for another physical object, thus a
relation between physical objects.
Manifestation relations seem to be relations between aspects. Such as the 
length of a mercury column is a manifestation of a
temperature.     (03)

In my view roles are also aspects, extrinsic as they depend on relationships. 
Played roles are realities, but I don't see a need to
call that 'conceptual'.     (04)

Andries    (05)

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens
> Hans Polzer
> Verzonden: donderdag 4 oktober 2012 3:12
> Aan: '[ontolog-forum] '; doug@xxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> 
> Andries,
> 
> Roles are conceptual realities if they are not detectable through
> phenomenology. Recall that my background context here is as an information
> system architect and interoperability specialist. A key issue in this domain
> is from what information sources can I populate an information model with
> actual data (and what constitutes "ground truth" or objective reality in
> each information domain). So there are a lot of (conceptual) entities that
> aren't detectable in physical reality - not just roles of physical entities.
> Many such entities have physical surrogates or manifestations, but the
> existence of the entity transcends those physical manifestations, at least
> for the larger society and institutional reality. Examples include
> corporations (and shares therein), governments, the school district and
> precinct example in the earlier email trail, money, trusts, contracts,
> relationships not based on physical connectivity, etc.. These entities are
> defined and detectable as such only in cyberspace, although some physical
> manifestations might be detectable in physical reality to varying degrees.
> For example, some of your money might be manifest in the form of cash in
> your wallet, or in a safe deposit box, but it's likely that most of the
> money you have exists only as ones and zeros in cyberspace.
> 
> I use the term "conceptual reality" to capture those aspects of reality that
> we rely on institutions to capture and represent for us in cyberspace (or on
> paper records in olden days). I also use the term "social reality" as a
> special case of conceptual reality in which the source is typically not
> institutional, but rather based on polling some scoped set of participants
> in a society. To give an example of the difference, the price I paid for my
> house is a conceptual reality, recorded in various institutions (the
> mortgage holder, the local jurisdiction land records institution, the title
> company, etc.). In contrast, the current market value of that same house is
> a social reality, the value of which depends on the specific set of people
> that might be interested in it at any given timeframe. For example, I might
> engage one or more professional assessors to give me an estimate of the
> market value, or make my own assessment based on comparison shopping of
> similar houses for sale in similar neighborhoods.  Once I decide to sell the
> house, I might encounter a (hopefully) large set of potential buyers, each
> of which might have a somewhat different idea of what the market value of
> the house might be. And once I accept a specific offer from such a potential
> buyer, the market value of the house will once again become a conceptual
> reality, recognized as such by the relevant institutions (sort of like the
> collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics). Note that the assessed
> value of the house as determined by the local taxing authority is a
> conceptual reality for the most part ( I have to pay real estate taxes based
> on this specific number - not based on the price I might actually be able to
> sell the house at), but one I could challenge by appealing to social reality
> (but generally without much chance of success, depending on local
> institutional rules and peculiarities). We often use institutions and
> associated mechanisms to convert social realities to conceptual realities,
> such as elections, beauty or talent contests, employee performance ratings,
> academic tenure, etc. But many social realities don't lend themselves to
> this kind of institutionalization, hence the rise of Facebook, Twitter, and
> the like, as sources of information that need to be continuously/frequently
> monitored and monitored selectively for the social scope that interests us
> or affects our operational objectives.
> 
> Hans
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andries van
> Renssen
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:06 AM
> To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> 
> Doug,
> I try to understand your concept 'conceptual reality', which you
> distinguished from 'physical reality'. Please clarify that.
> How does 'conceptual reality' relate to the concept 'role'?
> Is a 'conceptual reality' an 'imaginary physical thing'? or is it a
> 'possible physical thing' or is it a 'mental reality'?
> Do conceptual realities obey the laws of physics or other laws?
> 
> Fyi, for me 'person' is not a role. But customer, student, patient,
> performer, enabler, etc. are roles, because they are extrinsic aspects which
> existence depend on a relation with some other role player.
> 
> With kind regards,
> Andries
> 
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
> > Verzonden: donderdag 27 september 2012 23:35
> > Aan: [ontolog-forum]
> > Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> >
> > On Thu, September 27, 2012 08:20, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> > > Hans,
> > > The concept 'boundary' is a kind of role. Such a role can be played
> > > by a physical object.
> > > Such a role playing physical object can have various roles
> simultaneously.
> > > You make a distinction between a physical object and (its?) multiple
> > > 'conceptual realities'. Your concept called 'conceptual reality'
> > > seem to be more or less equivalent to the concept 'role' or its
> > > subtype 'usage'. Whereas your use of the concept 'surrogate' seem to
> > > be equivalent with the relation type <can play a role as a> between
> > > role player and played role.
> > > Other people have created similar concepts, called 'functional
> > > physical object' or just 'functional object' or 'functional location'
> > > (e.g. in the SAP system) with a similar purpose.
> > > In my view roles and a taxonomy of kinds of roles should be used
> instead.
> > > When we distinguish between the object and its roles as two
> > > different things, then there is no need to talk about a different
> > > object for each role, but about different roles played by one role
> player.
> > > Then the role playing object is not dependent on the view or
> > > context, but some roles (and accompanying relations) are only
> > > relevant for particular views and contexts whereas the role player
> > > is relevant for all.
> >
> > Would you then consider an Animal or a Human as being a role of that
> > animal's body?
> >
> > -- doug foxvog
> >
> > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > >> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens Hans Polzer
> > >> Verzonden: woensdag 26 september 2012 2:55
> > >> Aan: edbark@xxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
> > >> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> > >>
> > >> Ed,
> > >>
> > >> You surmise correctly that my definition of physical reality is
> > >> that which is capable of being sensed through physical
> > >> phenomenology (but not just by our five senses).  I make this
> > >> distinction from conceptual reality, such as school districts,
> > >> property lines (which may have physical surrogates, such as fences,
> > >> walls, etc.), because in the world of systems I was involved with
> > >> there was a tendency to try to rely on physical sensors (e.g.,
> > >> radars, optics, chemical, temperature, etc.) to form a "picture" of
> > >> reality for the purpose of understanding and then acting on that
> > >> reality to achieve a desired outcome. The problem is that
> > >> society/institutions have created important aspects of reality that
> > >> are not detectable through such phenomenology ( e.g., radar,
> > >> optics, chemical, temperature, etc.) to form a "picture" of reality
> > >> for the purpose of understanding and then acting on that reality to
> > >> achieve a desired outcome. The problem is that society/institutions
> > >> have created important aspects of reality that are not detectable
> > >> through such phenomenology. Therefore, systems must access other
> > >> data sources (i.e., not physical sensors) to form a picture of
> > >> reality that is complete enough for their purposes. This is the
> > >> drive behind recent efforts to create "augmented reality" apps that
> > >> allow information available only in cyberspace to be superimposed
> > >> on views of physical reality using computer generated graphics.
> > >> Examples include displaying historical information about a building
> > >> or site that one might be looking at through a camera viewfinder,
> > >> or who the current owner might be. Note that this technology can
> > >> also be used to make physical reality more visible than it might
> > >> otherwise be, such as displaying underground utilities or the soil
> > >> composition.
> > >>
> > >> The key point here is that human society (typically via
> > >> institutions) creates realities that are not detectable through
> phenomenology/sensors.
> > >> In
> > >> the past this conceptual reality was relatively private, recorded
> > >> on paper, and difficult to access by the general public. The
> > >> internet revolution has increasingly made this reality more broadly
> > >> accessible - and perhaps more frighteningly - more
> > >> controllable/changeable  over a network connection (think Identity
> > >> Theft, for example). Of course, the internet revolution is also
> > >> making physical reality more broadly accessible, and in some cases,
> > >> changeable - also potentially frightening (think Stuxnet).
> > >>
> > >> Andries,
> > >>
> > >> Yes, the wall or fence of a piece of property is a physically
> > >> detectable boundary - but you can't tell from the physics of the
> > >> wall or fence what the boundary represents, or even if it is a
> > >> boundary in a particular conceptual reality (walls and fences are
> > >> built for all kinds of reasons and may not represent current
> > >> conceptual realities of, say, property lines or the perimeter of a
> > >> planned garden). One of the key issues here is that while some
> > >> conceptual realities are detectable in physical reality through
> > >> surrogates such as fences and walls, any given physical reality may
> > >> comprise (must comprise??) multiple conceptual realities, typically
> > >> in different contexts. A piece of property may be part of a school
> > >> district, it may be playground, part of a watershed, a voting
> > >> precinct/ward, a bus route stop, a wildlife habitat, a terrorist
> > >> target, etc., all simultaneously. Which of these is operative
> > >> depends on the context of whoever/whatever is referencing that
> > >> particular piece of property. If one attempts to associate a
> > >> particular piece of property in physical space with any one of
> > >> these conceptual realities exclusively (which may information
> > >> systems strive to do), there will be an interoperability problem
> > >> with systems that reference that same piece of property to a
> > >> different conceptual reality and associated context.
> > >> Typically such problems are resolved by recourse to some
> > >> "context-neutral"
> > >> frame of reference, such as GPS coordinates that both system use to
> > >> determine whether they are talking about the same piece of property
> > >> or not.
> > >> But "context-neutral" is in quotes for a reason. I'll note in
> > >> passing that the Space Shuttle has three different definitions of
> > >> altitude that it uses depending in its operating context - distance
> > >> from the center of the earth (for orbital operations), elevation
> > >> above mean sea level (for ascent and re-entry operations), and
> > >> elevation above ground/surface (for landing).
> > >> No
> > >> word on what would happen if the Space Shuttle were to take
> > >> off/land on a body other than the planet earth. The implicit
> > >> assumption of earth-only contexts are likely to be pervasive
> > >> throughout the Shuttle systems.
> > >>
> > >> Hans
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed
> > >> Barkmeyer
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:00 PM
> > >> To: [ontolog-forum]
> > >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Andries van Renssen wrote:
> > >> > Hans,
> > >> > You state that things that have boundaries that cannot be
> > >> > detected by physical means, such as a 'school district', are
> > >> > conceptual realities and not physical realities.
> > >> > How do you know that a school district is a reality and not only
> > >> > an idea? I assume, because you can point to such a district in
> > >> > the real
> > >> physical world.
> > >> > Your argument is that the boundaries are not physical phenomena,
> > >> > but they are defined by human decision or agreement only.
> > >> > I understand that, and I agree that such boundaries are not
> > >> > measurable physical objects, but the area's within such 'boundaries
> by agreement'
> > >> > are nevertheless physical. (and it might even be possible to
> > >> > point to the boundaries in physical reality, because we know
> > >> > where the
> > >> boundaries
> > >> are).
> > >> > Otherwise countries and yards would not be physical either,
> > >> > because the boundary of my yard is contractually defined and
> > >> > there is no physical boundary with my neighbor's yard; and a wall
> > >> > would be physical, but the left hand part of the wall would not be
> physical??
> > >> > That sounds as odd consequences.
> > >> >
> > >> > Therefore, I think that such things are physical objects (or
> > >> > roles of physical objects), which boundaries are defined by human
> decisions.
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > Andries
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> It seems to me that this is an argument about the denotation of an
> > >> undefined term.  The problem here is whether 'physical reality'
> > >> means "something that can be sensed with one of the five senses",
> > >> which I took to be Hans'
> > >> definition, or not.  If 'physical reality' has that definition, a
> > >> 'school district' is not a 'physical reality', whatever else it
> > >> might be.
> > >> Andries
> > >> has a different definition for 'physical reality', but he has not
> > >> stated it.
> > >> So we cannot consider whether 'school district' satisfies it.
> > >>
> > >> I am simply applying Kilov's Razor:  "I will not agree with
> > >> anything you say unless you define your terms."
> > >>
> > >> -Ed
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> > >> National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems
> > >> Integration Division
> > >> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> > >> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                Cel: +1 240-672-5800
> > >>
> > >> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> > >> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > >> >> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >> [mailto:ontolog-forum- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug
> > >> >> foxvog
> > >> >> Verzonden: maandag 10 september 2012 20:46
> > >> >> Aan: '[ontolog-forum] '
> > >> >> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic
> > >> >> Structures
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 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.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> Well stated.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -- doug foxvog
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> 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
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ________________________________________________________________
> > >> >> _ 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> 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
> >
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (06)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>