To: | ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
---|---|
From: | joel luis carbonera <joelcarbonera@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:10:31 -0200 |
Message-id: | <CALqyLEdDPCeX=BFp58jUhCav=weay44iHMvEssdu=Y40sKr8Sg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Reading the answers, it seems to me that we are assuming some implicit preferences regarding to very general ontological choices (commitments?). The most of ontologies that I know commits to the "ontological square", which provides a very basic distinction between types (universals) and tokens (particulars). I wonder if can we commit ourselves to an ontology that do not distinguish between types and tokens. Maybe I am wrong, but, without this very basic commitment, the question seems to vanish. Or is not the case?
Of course, we must evaluate the pragmatic value of this choice. Personally, I don't know if there are ontologies that incorporate this underlying assumption, in computer Science. Considering that we are assuming this strong distinction, we can re-write the question, asking if "Considering the assumption of a strong distinction between types and instances, can ontologies contain individuals?"
Even in this scope, I wondering if some top/upper/foundational ontologies (supposing that we are developing ontologies commiting to one of them) do not impose constraints regarding the possible relationships between universals and particulars. Maybe, (I don't know) depending the foundational ontology that we are using, we could not relate universals and particular in other ways than through the "instanceOf" relation.
Finally, I confess that I always have doubts about classes as "US president" or "Brazilian river". Sometimes I wonder if these classes are within the competence of ontologies. It seems to me that in both classes are related to contingent properties of the individuals that belong to them.
If we accept "special individuals" in our ontologies, there is another question which raises: what makes these individuals special?? It seems strange to consider classes as "Paul's mother" in an ontology. So, maybe, we can think in conditions that allow consider these individuals in our ontology.
Best regards. Joel. ____________________________________
_________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and individuals, Richard Dapoigny |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals, Hans Polzer |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals, Richard Dapoigny |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and individuals, Sandro Rama Fiorini |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |