Dear Doug, (01)
On Tue, February 11, 2014 15:13, Ali H wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:48 PM, John McClure
> <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: (02)
>> 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.* (03)
This is forcing a 4D view on those who don't wish to use it.
[MW>] Actually it isn't. Boy is not a subtype of person in either 3D or 4D
ontologies (well not good ones anyway). 4D just has a very clear rationale
why that is the case. (04)
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 ..."
[MW>] OK. So let's try this in BFO. BFO has endurants and processes, and for
a person there is an endurant object, and also process which is the person's
life. The person participates in that life. Boy and man are parts of that
life, and are subtypes of process. Process is disjoint form the endurant
objects, so cannot share subtypes. (05)
>> To most people, and dictionaries, Boy and Man are subtypes of Person. (06)
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.
[MW>] That is not quite right. For them to be the same thing in 3D+T at ALL
instances when an object is a person it must also be a boy (or man). That is
what being rigid means, it is also why boy and man are not subtypes of
person under 3D. It is just a less clear explanation than the 4D one. (07)
>> 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. (08)
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.
[MW>] Sure, and there might be a 3D person that linked the two together, but
that is 3 objects, not one object that is a person and a man and a boy. (09)
> 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. (010)
All this means is that Ontoclean promotes a 4D view. If this is merely a
recommendation it does not require 4D.
[MW>] Actually Ontoclean is very 3D. It was developed in conjunction with
DOLCE. Rigidity has no meaning in 4D. (011)
>> 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'. (012)
> 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. (013)
I agree. Language can inform ontologies but they are quite different. (014)
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.
[MW>] You do not have (valid) subtype relations between non-rigid and rigid
classes in 3D, only between rigid classes and between non-rigid classes. (015)
Regards (016)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire,
SG6 2SU. (017)
-- doug (018)
> 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.
> ... (019)
> 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 ... (020)
> Best,
> Ali
> (021)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (023)
|