On Tue, May 28, 2013 20:10, William Frank wrote:
>...
> For example, chardonnay is NOT a type of wine, contrary to the OWL
> tutorial. Chardonnay is a type of grape, and a wine may be classified
> according the grapes used to make it, as well as in myrid other ways. (01)
If wines my be classified according to the types of grapes used to make
them, why do you object to these "classes" of wines being called "types"
of wine? (02)
I have often criticized the wine tutorial, but i do not find this to be one
of its problems. (03)
> These are not different 'types" of wine, using the bilogical analogy for
> taxonomies. (04)
Formal ontology has long since moved past taxonomy trees. It is
much more useful to use directed acyclic graphs. (05)
> Wine would have only ONE subtype hierachy, based on
> what is essential about wine being wine. (How it is made). (06)
One valid subtype hierarchy of types of wine is based on the type of
grape. Another (single level) hierarchy of wine type is by color. A
third is regional. A regional division of wine types by vineyard might
be useful at some level of business, but a further division by vineyard
and grape variety provides a useful disjoint set of types of wine. This
hierarchy of types can be taken one step further -- by vintage year. (07)
>> ...
>
> --
> William Frank
>
> 413/376-8167 (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|