Le 14/12/2012 07:18, Pat Hayes a écrit :
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Richard Dapoigny wrote:
>
>> Le 13/12/2012 18:19, Alexander Titov a écrit :
>>> 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
>> Alex, don't confuse instances and member of. The last one has long been
>debated and refers to part-whole relations.
> ??? Member of is the classical name for the (inverse of the) relation
>between a set and something in that set. This is (a) not even remotely
>debateable and (b) nothing whatever to do with part/whole relations.
Member_of can be considered as a part-whole relation as long as we
consider collections (which is NOT a mereological relation as far as I
know) and has been analyzed by several authors (see e.g., G. Guizzardi,
Representing Collectives and Their Members in UML Conceptual Models: An
Ontological Analysis, Procs. of the Entity-Relationship International
Conference (ER 2010), LNCS 6413, 2010, pp. 265--274, C.M. Keet, A.
Artale, Representing and reasoning over a taxonomy of part-whole
relations, Applied Ontology, 3 (1--2), (2008) 91--110). It seems to me
that confusing classes with sets has a logical bias... (01)
> AFAIK, the part/whole relationshiop described by mereology is never
>referred to using "member" or any grammatical variation. Also, "member" is
>virtually synonymous with "instance", if one identifies classes as sets (which
>is commonly, though not universally, done.)
>
>> We may have this relation between individuals.
>> Entity can be seen as some classes (here leaf classes) and instance refers
>either as the ":" relation if we are in a typed framework (e.g., object
>Oriented) or as teh "instanceOf" relation in first order theories.
> And what *is* that "instanceOf" relation? Do you mean the relationship of an
>entity to a set containing it, or to a class of which it is a member? Or a
>concept which it instantiates? Or something else?
>
> Pat
>
>
>> Richard
>>
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> Richard Dapoigny 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.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> Amanda Vizedom 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> Hans Polzer 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.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> Matthew West 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.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> Hans Polzer 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
> (02)
--
And the wounded skies above say
it's much too much too late.
Well, maybe we should all be praying for time. (03)
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)
|