JM McClure asked:
>> Pat mentions COSMOS' numerous subproperties of isaPartOf --
I happen to believe the adoptability of an ontology is inversely proportional
to the number of assertions it proposes, so I wonder why he sees them "all
... useful in their proper context". As I am proposing that no nouns be
(in) predicates, then the number of properties drops precipitously, with proper
community focus then placed on nouns' models.
If ‘adoptability’ means ease of *learning*, of course
smaller is better. But ease of *use* and ease of *comprehension*
often works against minimizing size. In addition, the COSMO is intended to
be a foundation ontology that has *all* of the identifiable semantic
primitives, and can therefore serve as an interlingua to translate assertions
in domain ontologies among each other, and thereby support general semantic
interoperability. . Therefore it must have all of the identifiable semantic
primitives. For this purpose there is a minimum necessary size. But beyond
that, it is precisely the consideration of ease of *use* that pushes one
to include certain elements composable from the primitives, because these refer
to concepts so common that to force people to re-create a composite every time
one wants to use them would hinder communication rather than help. This is the
same reason that, when people want to speak at all effectively in a foreign
language, they learn more than just the basic words. No one wants to have to regenerate
the definition of an “automobile” every time one wants to talk about one , even
if it can be precisely defined by more basic words. Much easier to just say “automobile”
and assume that other speakers also find it convenient to use well-known labels
for common concepts. The same principle applies to relations as to types
(classes) in an ontology. Relations are defined mostly by the logical
implications that can be derived from their use (and by their domain and range).
More specific relations have narrower sets of logical implications, and are
therefore more precise - - - a very important consideration when trying to make
one’s assertions as unambiguous as possible.
One can define all of mathematics from set theory, but how many
people worry about the derivation of numbers from sets when doing addition or
multiplication? Aggregate concepts are really convenient. Look at any
scientific paper.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
908-561-3416