On Tue, February 11, 2014 15:13, Ali H wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:48 PM, John McClure
> <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: (01)
>> Take a Person for example, with subclasses Boy and Man.
*[MW] The main
>>> problem with this is that Boy and Man are not subtypes of person. For
>>> Boy
>>> and Man to be subtypes of Person, each Boy is a Person, and each Man is
>>> a (different) Person.
>>> What would be correct is that Boy and Man a subtypes of
>>> StateOfPerson, and that each StateOfPerson is a temporalPart of a
>>> Person.* (02)
This is forcing a 4D view on those who don't wish to use it. (03)
Instead of claiming one model is (in)correct, it would be nicer to say,
"In the 4D model, non-rigid classes such as Boy and Man, are not subtypes
of rigid
classes such as Person. A 4D model would consider Boy and Man to be subtypes
of a non-rigid StateOfPerson, and ..." (04)
>> To most people, and dictionaries, Boy and Man are subtypes of Person. (05)
The relation "subtype" means that any instance of the first thing are
instances
of the second thing. In 4D a Man or Boy is a time slice of a MalePerson.
For
someone using 3D(+1) at any time there is an instance of a Man or Boy, that
instance is also an instance of Person. (06)
>> Second, should a KB contain both a Boy & Man resource about a given
>> individual, owl:sameAs would be used to indicate their equivalence
>> otherwise, yes, they would be a different person, as they should be. (07)
If Man & Boy were defined as disjoint, then nothing could simultaneously
be an
instance of both. But something could in one context be an instance of
one and
in another context be an instance of the other. (08)
> First, you might want to take a look at the Ontoclean paper [1],[2]. In
> this view, Boy is not Rigid, and hence not recommended to be related to a
> Person via a subtype relationship. (09)
All this means is that Ontoclean promotes a 4D view. If this is merely a
recommendation it does not require 4D. (010)
>> Third, StateofPerson is a wholly artificial term, lacking both practical
>> merit and semantic credibility. Fourth, this is a fine example of
>> ontologists' implicit saintliness modelling 'concepts' not 'language'. (011)
> Secondly, from your posts to this forum, this (the privileging or equating
> ontology to language) seems to be a major point of departure from your
> perspective and (I suspect) many ontologists on the list. (012)
I agree. Language can inform ontologies but they are quite different. (013)
If computer ontologies were originated by speakers of a language that
differentiates "is currently" from "is necessarily", that distinction would
be part of the ontology language. There would be classes which instances
are necessarily members of, and classes which instances may be members
of for part of their existence (of which subclasses would be necessarily
(non)
initial, necessarily (non) final, and those which an instance can join and
leave
multiple times). It would also probably have resulted in three or more
subclass/subtype relations: one between rigid classes, one between non-rigid
and rigid classes, and one (or more) between non-rigid classes. (014)
-- doug (015)
> Langauge and
> ontology *are not* the same things. While language may contain many clues
> as to how ontologically model something, it is only that - a clue.
> ... (016)
> I suspect the majority of ontologists have come to at least
> the following conclusions:
>
> 1. Ontology != Language
> 2. There are serious limits to linguistic clues in building an ontology
> ... (017)
> Best,
> Ali
> (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|