|
Dear all,
This debate is very interesting. Let us first put it within the
framework of computer science letting aside philosophical
questions.
I think that it is mandatory to introduce first a foundational
ontology, and here, I do not see the practical interest of having
particulars.
Then, we have more concrete domain ontologies (this can be further
refined, of course), and here there is some interest to have a
database related to the domain ontology. The purpose of this
database is precisely to support facts and particulars (rows of a
table).
But to have a coherent picture there is a need to formally
separate classes from their instances. Object oriented frameworks
for example have this property. However, it is not sufficient, and
if the purpose is to facilitate interoperability and to support
reasoning, then a logical framework is required.
I suggest some readings about a type theorical approach where
types and objects are clearly separated while at the same time a
strong logical framework is provided [ R. Dapoigny, P. Barlatier,
Towards Ontological Correctness of Part-whole Relations with
Dependent Types, Procs. of the Sixth Int. Conference (FOIS 2010),
(2010) 45--58, P. Barlatier, R. Dapoigny, A Type-Theoretical
Approach for Ontologies: the Case of Roles, Applied Ontology,
7(3), IOS Press (2012) pp 311--356. ].
Richard
Le 11/12/2012 15:45, Nicola Guarino a écrit :
Folks,
the
point is not so much whether ontologies "contain" individuals,
but whether they should include *facts*
concerning specific individuals.
Of course ontologies are
about individuals, in the sense that they tipically describe
kinds of individuals, and the relationships among them. Such
relationships are general facts which concern individuals, but
usually not specific individuals.
Sometimes an ontology can
include facts concerning a specific individual, but (here is
the point)
***only if such facts are
intended to hold NECESSARILY in the underlying
conceptualization ***
So, statements like "The
United States are a country" or "The United States have a
president" may perfectly go, say, in a eGov ontology. On the
contrary, a statement like "The present president of United
States is Barack Obama", should not go in an ontology (the
Tbox), it rather goes to the Abox, simply because it doesn't
hold necessarily.
Unfortunately current OWL
theories often mix Tbox and Abox into something still called
"ontology", but this is their problem ;-)
Nicola
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
And the wounded skies above say
it's much too much too late.
Well, maybe we should all be praying for time.
|
richard_dapoigny.vcf
Description: Vcard
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|