|To:||doug@xxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 30 May 2013 21:55:30 -0400|
doug, we agree on this completely.|
I would like to add, though
If you are morally opposed to domain-specific predicates, that's
But as you say below, neither of us are so morally opposed, in their proper place. For me, this proper place is any design that uses a language that expects these kinds of binary predicates, and would not know what in the world to do with the logical connectors (this includes E/R models, UML with its official semantics, relational databases, traditional O-O programming languages, ...
However, starting with a more abstract, universally applicable model with only one kind of domain thingie, that you can then cast as you find most effective for your needs and the language of your choice, to a class, a relation, a set, a function, an individual, ....
If you are morally opposed to ternary predicates, then its
Well, I know many are, in the belief we have discussed here often, that ternary predicates can be rexpressed as binaries. I think bad math professors must teach their students than some particular reduction (for example, iff is 'really' two if thens and an and) is what is 'real', even though many reductions are possible, and none are more real than any other, or where we started. If I recall correctly, we can say anything that can be said with a Turing string. But, it might take a mighty long time, unless you can zip out those '1's licketly split. I am all for n-ary predicates of every n. This has proven an elegant and simple way to express things. OTOH, for some computational purposes, one might impose all kinds of restrictions on how we say things. Making that into a universal, though, is pernicious, in my opinion.
Yes, and equally importantly to me, not only across domains but across syntactic and corresponding semantic paradigms.
-- wm frank
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Spatial Extent of Abstract Entities?, Hans Polzer|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] What is the role of an upper level ontology?, doug foxvog|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, doug foxvog|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, John F Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|