ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] What is the role of an upper level ontology?

To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Hans Polzer" <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:21:30 -0400
Message-id: <02c001ce55c9$e7ff9fc0$b7fedf40$@verizon.net>
I agree with your comments, Doug. I was just trying to convey some of my own
experiences in dealing with systems that described what might at first blush
look like the same entity in different ways. However, the topic of labels
for entities is not entirely decoupled from the issue of what constitutes an
entity, as your own comment suggests:
"Which still leaves the question of identifying the boundaries of that
entity.  Different contexts/purposes are interested in some of the
boundaries and are not concerned with others."
 In other words, the label for an entity is associated with a context/scope
which defines (often implicitly, but sometimes explicitly/legally) what
constitutes the boundaries of the entity.    (01)

As William Frank wrote in his comments on my earlier email, " I am pretty
sure that the concept of 'true' or 'innate' identity is not even
meaningful". I believe the same point applies to the issue of what
constitutes the boundaries or contents or makeup/constituent parts of an
entity. The operative context determines what the entity boundaries are (and
their nature), whether we are discussing subatomic particles, the
multiverse, or conceptual entities such as corporations or governments.    (02)

Hans    (03)

Hans    (04)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:05 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is the role of an upper level ontology?    (05)

On Sat, May 18, 2013 21:11, Hans Polzer wrote:    (06)

> The key point is that the context and associated frame(s) of reference 
> used to specify identity should be made explicit (in-line or via 
> indirection to some source specifying said context parameters).  The 
> NCOIC has developed a set of net centric principles, one of which, 
> "entity primacy", grapples directly with this identity issue.
> Several of the other principles also deal with this identity issue in 
> a supporting fashion (like "explicitness").
> Entity primacy is a bit of a somewhat intentional misnomer. It is 
> intended to force people to consider that however they might 
> identify/name    (07)

The "identity" which we have been discussing is not the name/label attached
to an entity, but the conceptual boundaries of that entity.    (08)

> some entity, at whatever level of specificity or atomicity,    (09)

This "specificity or atomicity" of the entity is what we are discussing.    (010)

> other people/institutions in other contexts may use some other 
> identity for the same entity.    (011)

Here, by "identity", you seem to mean "label".  That is a different subject.    (012)

> Entity primacy is worded this way to set it off from "collective 
> primacy", the usual way that entities are identified (e.g., name, SSN, 
> Passport number, ...). Put differently, any entity has a multiplicity 
> of identities, ...    (013)

Let's call this a multiplicity of "identifiers" or "labels", since the use
of the term "identities" conflicts with what we have been discussing.    (014)

> The point is that the entity has existence independent of the 
> collective context in which it is identified -    (015)

Certainly.    (016)

> hence "entity primacy".    (017)

Which still leaves the question of identifying the boundaries of that
entity.  Different contexts/purposes are interested in some of the
boundaries and are not concerned with others.    (018)

> Unfortunately, many information system contexts treat the identity
"label"
> they assign to entities as the only operable identity.
"label"    (019)

You bring up interesting points, but it seems to me that they belong to a
different discussion:  Entities can have multiple labels of different types,
with specific labels/label types being important in different contexts.
This suggests that specifying the contexts for various labels and label
types is useful.  It also suggests that a term should accept multiple labels
and that information about something can be accumulated by accumulating
information specified using different labels, so long as they can be
determined to refer to the "same"
entity.  Of course, care should be taken because many labels are not unique
outside a narrow context (e.g., in a family, a given name may be unique,
while in a small town, the given name must be paired with something else
(family name, occupation, place of origin, residence name, ...) to become a
unique label;  however, in a broader context, many such pairings are not
unique and some other label is needed to ensure a unique identifier.    (020)

-- doug f    (021)

> ...    (022)

> Hans    (023)





_________________________________________________________________
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    (024)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (025)

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