ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:28:48 -0500
Message-id: <05608bbef2f1b0fb98594867e7a6489a.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, December 18, 2012 22:37, Pat Hayes wrote:
> ...
> Here is one way to decide the matter: anything that can be described or
> referred to is, ipso facto, an individual. And of things that cannot be
> described or named, we must be silent.    (01)

Succinct.  In other words, everything is an individual.  Thus the word is
meaningless.  Thing(x) => Individual(x)    (02)

The concern about what an "individual" is is a feature of A-boxes and
T-boxes.  In a limited language in which consists of three disjoint types
of things, classes, instances of those classes, and relations between
instances of those classes (and possibly three more disjoint types:
datatypes, datatype relations, and datatype instances), some people
have taken to calling instances of the chosen classes "individuals".  Of
course, in such a situation, whether some term is an "individual" or not
depends upon the ontology language and the ontology content.  It does not
depend upon what the referent of the term happens to be.  Depending upon
your ontology, "biological species" might be an "individual" according to
such a definition; in another ontology, "Homo sapiens" might be an
individual; in a third, "Aristotle" might be;  in a fourth, "Aristotle in
320 BCE" might be.    (03)

A problem arises when people who use such a definition use language that
suggest that "individual" means something about the referent of the term.
If you must include the word, i'd suggest a longer phrase that makes the
meaning clear -- how about "OWL-DL individual term"?    (04)

I find the same problem with people using the term "instance" without
stating instance of what.  If you are referring to a specific term in a
specific ontology that has classes disjoint from class instances, you can
say "OWL-DL instance".  If not, why not say "instance of X", specifying
the X.    (05)

-- doug f    (06)

> Pat    (07)

> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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    (08)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>