On Mon, January 7, 2013 06:56, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> A concept such as kind of activity, kind of organism, etc. denotes the
> collection (all) subtypes of activity, organism, etc. (01)
The definition given for "kind_of_x" was far narrower. Defining such
a power-set is not very useful. Using a name that distinguishes what
subtypes are included (and thus indicates what subtypes are not) is
what i would want for such a meta-type. (02)
> However, the concepts activity, organism, etc. imply already all their
> subtypes.
> Therefore, including the collection of (all) subtypes in an ontology as a
> separate concept would be redundant. (03)
Yes. (04)
> Grouping of subtypes in other collections (subsets) needs a criterion for
> membership of the collection. Such a criterion would only
> be valid if the criterion is not a criterion for subtyping, otherwise it
> would also be redundant. (05)
I assume you mean that it is more stringent than merely a criterion
that instances are subtypes of the type being subtyped. (06)
> The level in the hierarchy, as is used in the organisms example, is such a
> possibly valid criterion. However, different branches in
> a hierarchy appear to have very different numbers of levels. And as far as
> I know, forcing a number of levels is arbitrary. (07)
The word 'level' seems to be being used for two separate things:
* ontological level from Individual, Type_of_Individual,
Type_of_Type_of_Individual
* biological taxonomic level. (08)
The second type of level has been proliferating and forcing a specific
number of such levels is indeed arbitrary. (09)
As for ontological level, i would suggest that four such levels are
sufficient.
Two examples: (010)
4. Biological Taxon Type, Major/Minor Biological Taxon Type
3. Species, Genus, Biological Order, Phylum, Subphylum, ...
2. Homo sapiens, Homo Genus, Primate, Chordate, ...
1. doug foxvog, John Sowa, ... (011)
4. Military Rank System
3. US Army Rank, Iranian National Guard Rank, PLA Rank, ...
2. US Army Private, Private First Class, US Army Specialist, ...
1. Bradley Manning, Norman Schwarzkopf, William Calley, ... (012)
The only utility that i have found for a fifth level term is specifying that
the fourth level types are instances of it, and applying rules and
restrictions to such instances, such as:
FourthOntologicalLevel( ?FL ) AND ?FL( ?TL ) =>
ThirdOntologicalLevel( ?TL ) (013)
-- doug f (014)
> Andries
>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens
>> doug foxvog
>> Verzonden: maandag 7 januari 2013 6:47
>> Aan: [ontolog-forum]
>> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Simplifying the language and tools for
>> teaching and using ontology
>>
>> On Fri, January 4, 2013 11:57, sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> > ... 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').
>>
>> > 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'.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Rules could be stated using such terms:
>> speciesOf(?organism, ?S) AND subtaxon(?S, ?G) AND Genus(?G) =>
>> genusOf(?organism, ?G)
>>
>> TaxonLevel(?TL1) and notEqual(?TL1, BiologicalDomain) =>
>> thereExists (TL2):
>> TaxonLevel(?TL2) and nextHigherMajorTaxonLevel(?TL1, ?TL2) [i'm
>> using shorter names because of
>> line length limitations.]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -- doug
>> ...
>> > John
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|