On Fri, January 4, 2013 11:57, sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: (01)
> ... I'd just like to emphasize the distinction
> between language and metalanguage.
> I believe that the failure to
> clarify that distinction and observe it consistently is the source of the
> disagreements.
> ...
> If Activity, Stone, and Hope, are categories (or classes or
> types) in your ontology, then you only need two metalevel terms:
> 'instance of' and 'subtype of' (or 'subclass of'). (02)
> Those terms let you talk about and distinguish
> instances of Activity, Stone, and Hope from
> subtypes of Activity, Stone, or Hope. The ontology itself should *not*
> have any categories with names like 'kind_of_activity' or
> 'class_of_activity'. (03)
John, i understand 'kind_of_activity' to be restrictive, allowing rules.
Defining metaclasses allows for this. I can understand you desiring
better names, if that is what your issue is. (04)
Let me give an example using organisms, instead of activities. However,
instead of using names such as 'kind_of_organism' and
'kind_of_kind_of_organism', i will use Species, Genus, Phylum,
Biological_Kingdom, etc. at the first level (all subtypes of
Biological_Taxon) and Biological_Taxon_Level at the second,
with the preceding list being instances of Biological_Taxon_Level. (05)
Rules could be stated using such terms:
speciesOf(?organism, ?S) AND subtaxon(?S, ?G) AND Genus(?G) =>
genusOf(?organism, ?G) (06)
TaxonLevel(?TL1) and notEqual(?TL1, BiologicalDomain) =>
thereExists (TL2):
TaxonLevel(?TL2) and nextHigherMajorTaxonLevel(?TL1, ?TL2)
[i'm using shorter names because of line length limitations.] (07)
Note that relations take instances of the meta-level terms as arguments
and the second rule checks for instances of the "kind_of_kind_of_..."
level term. (08)
I agree that "kind_of_kind_of_organism" is not a good name, and that
a name such as "biological_taxon_level" is preferable. However,
here you need two meta-levels. (09)
If your argument is over naming, i agree that a better name can normally
be found than "kind_of_X". If, however, you are objecting to including
meta-types in an ontology, i would respectfully suggest that they may be
quite useful. (010)
-- doug
...
> John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|