ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

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

from [Alexander Titov] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Alexander Titov <av_titov@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:19:02 +0000
Message-id: <50CA0E06.9050200@xxxxxxxxx>
Richard,

am I right to understand this:

> individuals as entities having no instance(s)

as

individuals as entities which don't (could not) have members? can we use 'instance of' as synonym to 'member of'?

In addition, how do you understand 'entity'? and 'instance' (in case I am wrong in my assumption above)?

Alex
13 December 2012 16:55
Hi all,
I see that the debate about identification of individuals is far from being consensual.
However, let us first (try to) agree of some fixed points as we say in mathematics.
A usual definition is to see individuals as entities having no instance(s). Is there some agreement about this first definition?
This should help to better characterize the link between ontologies and individuals.
All the best,
Richard


Le 13/12/2012 16:14, Amanda Vizedom a écrit :


--
And the wounded skies above say
it's much too much too late.
Well, maybe we should all be praying for time.
13 December 2012 15:14

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


13 December 2012 14:42

Matthew,

 

Great comments. Some remarks embedded below:

 

Hans

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:23 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals

 

Dear Hans,

 

You seem to be approaching this from a 3D perspective.

 

I think the identifiers are of the individuals in the context of specific roles within a larger institutional/social context. They are not identifiers of the roles themselves, since obviously many, if not all, individuals have these same roles.

 

MW: From a 4D perspective the identifiers are of the state of individual that is playing the role, rather than the individual for the whole of its life. For example, a Passport No. or a Driving License No only identifies particular states, not the person for the whole of their lives.

HP: Collective contexts have duration scope, so I do take a 4D perspective

Indeed, what identifiers of individuals are there that don’t have a specific context and perspective associated with them?

 

MW: Sometimes identifiers are created with that purpose, a birth certificate number for example.

HP: But my point was that even birth certificates have a particular institutional context – and can get lost or destroyed. They don’t represent a context-free identity for a person and are typically not coupled directly to a person biometrically and not all have numbers. I don’t know of any system that uses birth certificate numbers as identifiers for people.

 

That was why I made the comment “DNA notwithstanding” in my original post. By the way, DNA is not guaranteed to be a unique identifier, either – although evolution has endowed us with facial recognition capabilities that do a pretty good job. Maybe we will all live to see the day of a “context-free” individual identifier implanted in all individuals prior to birth? And what identifiers are inherent in individual entities that are not people? Maybe those laser-engraved serial numbers in some diamonds? Aren’t those put there by or under the aegis of a specific institution?

 

MW: Well this is a different point. The nice thing about unique identifiers is how many of them any individual can have. Being unique only means that within that context the identifier is managed to only refer to one thing. It does not prevent there being other unique identifiers for the same thing, and it does not prevent different identifiers for the same thing using the same scheme (though you might attempt that). For example, a person might try to obtain more than one Social Security Number so they can  commit benefit fraud.

 

The point is that all identities

 

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.

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                            

Information  Junction

Tel: +44 1489 880185

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

Skype: dr.matthew.west

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

 

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.

13 December 2012 10:22

Dear Hans,

 

You seem to be approaching this from a 3D perspective.

 

I think the identifiers are of the individuals in the context of specific roles within a larger institutional/social context. They are not identifiers of the roles themselves, since obviously many, if not all, individuals have these same roles.

 

MW: From a 4D perspective the identifiers are of the state of individual that is playing the role, rather than the individual for the whole of its life. For example, a Passport No. or a Driving License No only identifies particular states, not the person for the whole of their lives.

 

Indeed, what identifiers of individuals are there that don’t have a specific context and perspective associated with them?

 

MW: Sometimes identifiers are created with that purpose, a birth certificate number for example.

 

That was why I made the comment “DNA notwithstanding” in my original post. By the way, DNA is not guaranteed to be a unique identifier, either – although evolution has endowed us with facial recognition capabilities that do a pretty good job. Maybe we will all live to see the day of a “context-free” individual identifier implanted in all individuals prior to birth? And what identifiers are inherent in individual entities that are not people? Maybe those laser-engraved serial numbers in some diamonds? Aren’t those put there by or under the aegis of a specific institution?

 

MW: Well this is a different point. The nice thing about unique identifiers is how many of them any individual can have. Being unique only means that within that context the identifier is managed to only refer to one thing. It does not prevent there being other unique identifiers for the same thing, and it does not prevent different identifiers for the same thing using the same scheme (though you might attempt that). For example, a person might try to obtain more than one Social Security Number so they can  commit benefit fraud.

 

The point is that all identities

 

MW: Identity is different from identifier…

 

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                            

Information  Junction

Tel: +44 1489 880185

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

Skype: dr.matthew.west

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

 

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.

12 December 2012 23:04

Matthew,

 

I think the identifiers are of the individuals in the context of specific roles within a larger institutional/social context. They are not identifiers of the roles themselves, since obviously many, if not all, individuals have these same roles. Indeed, what identifiers of individuals are there that don’t have a specific context and perspective associated with them? That was why I made the comment “DNA notwithstanding” in my original post. By the way, DNA is not guaranteed to be a unique identifier, either – although evolution has endowed us with facial recognition capabilities that do a pretty good job. Maybe we will all live to see the day of a “context-free” individual identifier implanted in all individuals prior to birth? And what identifiers are inherent in individual entities that are not people? Maybe those laser-engraved serial numbers in some diamonds? Aren’t those put there by or under the aegis of a specific institution?

 

The point is that all identities of individuals, people or otherwise, that we use today have a specific and scope-limited institutional/collective context, whether they be names, serial numbers, telephone numbers, MAC addresses, IP addresses, email addresses, account numbers, URLs, VINs, or anything else. This is why we included the “entity primacy” principle in the net-centric principles we developed for NCOIC. Basically, the identity of anything is independent of any collective context and has primacy over any identity that any collective context might apply/assign to that entity. We recognize that entities generally don’t have obvious innate identities, per the discussion above. But we included the entity primacy principle to underscore the fact that any “citizen of the network” or collective, such as an enterprise or government, should not assume that the identity it assigns to an entity is the one true identity for that individual entity. Put differently, every individual entity will always have other identities in other contexts, and you need to be prepared to deal with that fact for whatever purposes you might interact with others about that individual entity. A more pragmatic application of the principle would be that every individual entity in your knowledge base should have at least two identities – the one “native” to your context and one that is recognized outside your context. More is often better (but not always). You can see this at work in just about any “eBusiness”. Typically you have a customer id specific to the business and an email address not controlled by that business. Most businesses identify their employees by multiple identifiers such as “name”, “taxid (SSN in US)”, “employee/badge number (not always the same)”, “email address”, or even “PC UserID”. They might also assign role identifiers such as “position code”, “pay grade”, “organization-id”, “project-id”, but these role identifiers are typically used only to qualify the individual, not to identify the individual.

 

Hans

 

 

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:39 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals

 

Dear Hans,

I would argue that most of the different identifiers you mention refer to different roles a person might play, rather than to the person themselves.

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                           

Information  Junction

Tel: +44 1489 880185

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

Skype: dr.matthew.west

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

 

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.

 

 

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hans Polzer
Sent: 12 December 2012 02:20
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals

 

Don’t forget that identifiers for individuals are grounded in institutional frames of reference with context and scope. Your name is not yours. Rather it typically was assigned to you by a combination of your parents and whatever jurisdiction you were born in that issued your birth certificate. Note that SSN is also nation and jurisdiction-specific, and interestingly, is not guaranteed to be unique to you. Your driver’s license number is specific to the state issuing the license. The combination of nation, state, and driver’s license number represents your identity in a motor vehicle operating context (assuming the nation you are operating in recognizes your issuing nation/state license), and possibly in a voting context as well – but not in an IRS context or Social Security context.  Passport numbers are specific to people in an international travel context, and issued by the State Department or similar institution in other national contexts. There are many other identities for individuals (not just people) in differing contexts and scope. For example, part numbers, serial numbers, model numbers, UPC codes, VINs, RFID, asset number, title number, policy number, customer number, etc.

 

The important thing to recognize is that the same individual may have a different individual identifier in different ontologies, and that if you want interoperability across domains and contexts, you need to have a way of mapping individuals from one identifier frame of reference to another, whether we are talking about people, countries, elements, planets, products, retailers, airline flights, airport gates, airplanes, satellites, etc. And we need to recognize that there are few, if any, “inherent” or “context-free” individual identities, DNA notwithstanding. Put differently, the identify of an individual in a given ontology should be assumed to be specific to that ontology, and any institutional/domain frames of reference and scope specified for that ontology. A “best practice” would be to be explicit about such institutional frames of reference and scope if and when individuals are identified in some ontology.

 

Hans

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Dapoigny
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:00 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals

 

Le 11/12/2012 20:30, Barry Smith a écrit :

It was only some examples (of course not complete). For people I do not suggest the name but rather e.g., a Social Security Number (SSN).
Richard
 

 



_________________________________________________________________



--
And the wounded skies above say
it's much too much too late.
Well, maybe we should all be praying for time.

_________________________________________________________________
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)
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals, Richard Dapoigny
Next by Date:  Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals, Richard Dapoigny
Previous by Thread:  Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals, Richard Dapoigny
Next by Thread:  Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals, Richard Dapoigny
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]