Dear Patrick, (01)
Up to now I have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that a "time slice" of
something refers to a time slice of an individual.
[MW>] That is correct.
But "man" and "boy"
are classes, not individuals, and I need clarification from the experts as
to whether a "time slice" can really be a class? In what formalism is that
not possible?
[MW>] Well individual is also a class, man and boy are just classes whose
members are timeslices of some person. (02)
If an ontology is to be used in Natural Language Processing (a critical
application, IMHO), then it should diverge from linguistic usage only where
necessary. I agree that language has some aspects that do not translate
well into the logical format of ontologies, but the subclass relation of
"boy" to "person" seems very well established in ordinary usage, and if any
ontology formalism cannot represent that relation, I do not see much of a
future for that formalism.
[MW>] We say that a man is a person, but this is very ambiguous. There are
at least three interpretations of "is a" and we usually leave the
distinguishing pieces out: (03)
1. "Matthew is a person". This is a classification relation, and should more
fully be stated "Matthew is an instance of person."
2. "A female is a person". This is a subtype relation, and should more fully
be stated "Each female is also a person", or "female is a subtype of
person".
3. "A boy is a person". This is a temporal part relation and should more
fully be stated "Each boy is a state (or stage, or part of the life) of a
person". (04)
One of the problems with language is that we leave out as much context as we
think we can get away with, and sometimes find we have left out too much. (05)
Regards (06)
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. (07)
Pat (08)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416 (09)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:49 PM
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man > >On Tue, February 11,
2014 15:13, Ali H wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:48 PM, John McClure >>
<jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>>> 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.* > >This is forcing a 4D view on those who don't wish to use it.
>
>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 ..."
>
>>> To most people, and dictionaries, Boy and Man are subtypes of Person.
>
>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.
>
>>> 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.
>
>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.
>
>> 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.
>
>All this means is that Ontoclean promotes a 4D view. If this is merely a
>recommendation it does not require 4D.
>
>>> 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'.
>
>> 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.
>
>I agree. Language can inform ontologies but they are quite different.
>
>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.
>
>-- doug
>
>> 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.
>> ...
>
>> 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 ...
>
>> Best,
>> Ali
>>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________________
>_______
>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 > (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|