Matthew,
I know these issues have been discussed in great detail, but as I
mentioned before, I think that elements of an ontology should have the most
informative and least misleading labels. My goal for an upper ontology is
to be as unambiguous as possible, and also to provide a basis for all
potential domain ontologies. For any given application one may choose to
consider the contents of a container as 'part' of the container, but it may
well be very important to make the distinction.
In a refinery, for example, with fluids rapidly passing through some
length of pipe, are the fluids inside the pipe at any given time considered
as 'part' of the pipe? Are the crew of a ship below decks part of the ship?
That may work in some applications, but it is nonintuitive, could mislead
the ontology users, and would give trouble in a Natural Language
application, which is one of the important ones I am concerned with.
There are many degrees of transience of materials moving in and out of
objects, so one needs to create a criterion. I just think that the
criterion that *anything* enclosed in an object is *part* of that object is
too simple for many cases. There are cases where enclosed materials *can*
be 'part' of an object - the mercury in a glass-mercury thermometer, for
example is treated in COSMO as part of the thermometer, because it is a
stable and functional part. Without it, the thermometer doesn't work. But
the gasoline in an automobile is more problematic, because it is intended
not to remain in the gas tank. I prefer logical 'parts' to have some degree
of temporal stability.
There may be a use for the general notion of anything spatially contained
being a part, and such a relation should be defined in the top ontology.
But there are lots of other part relations, and that more general one is one
I would be very reluctant to label as a 'part' relation. I would prefer to
label such a relation 'isSpatiallyContainedWithin' or some such. That would
mean the same, without misleading potential users. (01)
Pat (02)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
908-561-3416 (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:19 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is the role of an upper level
> ontology?
>
> Dear PatC,
> I don't see why that is any harder than considering the oxygen that
> enters
> your body as you breath and leaves later as part of some carbon dioxide.
> There are admittedly some questions to consider, is the volume of your
> lungs
> inside or outside your body? For instance. But it is not of great
> significance what your answer is.
>
> 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/
> https://sites.google.com/site/drmatthewwest/
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
> England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire,
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Cassidy
> > Sent: 20 May 2013 18:55
> > To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is the role of an upper level
> ontology?
> >
> > PatH:
> >
> > One issue in parthood as often used has been problematic for me: if
> it is
> true
> > in mereology that:
> > > If we are talking about
> > > physical objects (the usual case) then it can be described as: if
> you
> >
> > were to draw a tight spatiotemporal boundary around B, A would be >
> wholly
> > included inside that boundary. So if a lock is part-of a door, > and
> a
> door
> > is part-of a house, then yes, that lock is part-of that > house,
> because
> the
> > door is inside the house-boundary and the lock is > inside the
> door-boundary.
> > >
> > IF we have a physical object (e.g. me) and at some time t a
> neutrino is
> > passing through that object (me) so that it is enclosed within the
> convex
> hull
> > of the physical object, does it follow that the neutrino is part of
> me at
> that
> > time? If so, it complicates the logical description of real physical
> objects.
> >
> > PatC
> >
> > Patrick Cassidy
> > MICRA Inc.
> > cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> > 908-561-3416
> > (04)
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|