Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals

[Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hans, et al, 

Info Systems might not generally make that distinction, but Ontologies, and deployed ontology-based systems can, should, and often do.

The unique name of an individual within an ontology is generally artificial, in order to guarantee uniqueness. Namespaces, Microtheories, and other mechanisms supporting ontology modularity serve to extend that uniqueness beyond the bounds of the original ontology or module.  This is quite separate from any identifier used for the individual in any other system. Best practice IME is to map to identifier systems explicitly, using specific mapping predicates (for example, "socialSecurityNumber," "legalName," "vehicleIdentityNumber," "serialNumber," "XYZemployeeID"); those predicates can and should themselves be defined with explicit reference to the context in which they apply or authority which issues and uses them. Note, also, that this approach is essentially neutral to metaphysical questions about the individual/class distinction, as identifiers can be, and often are, treated as contextual for any thing in the ontology, and mapping identifiers for classes is often done in precisely the same way, using specific mapping predicates whose context/authority is made explicit (for example, "modelNumber," "cHEBIName," etc.).  

This approach also eases things in deployed systems that are used to track (and perhaps eventually unify/identify) initially unidentified things using partial information.

Best, 

Amanda

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Hans Polzer <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MW: Identity is different from identifier…

HP: Correct! But information systems generally don’t make that distinction because the only way they have of distinguishing among individuals is through identifiers – which have context, usually implicit and overlooked. And one purpose of the “entity primacy” principle is to make developers explicitly aware of that distinction so that they don’t mistake the identifiers they are using for individuals for the identity of those individuals (which is their own and inherent in their existence in some reality). The best we can do is to get socio-political agreement on some “near-innate” identifier for individuals, such as VINS for motor vehicles intended for use on public roads and MAC addresses for Ethernet devices.  Such identifiers are useful for information sharing interoperability among diverse contexts about the same individuals. But we don’t really have such an identifier for people (yet). Maybe some “superDNS” identifier certificate issued independently of national/local jurisdiction before birth to all people (like VINs) will be brought about thanks to the Internet, but I’m not holding my breath. Or maybe some biometric will be found that can serve as this “near-innate” identifier on the network. And we need to be vigilant and remember that even these identifiers are not the same as identity and that the individuals may have other identifiers in other contexts.

 

_________________________________________________________________
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)