Up to now, I had assumed the distinction between a man and a boy was which
could do a man's work. (01)
Regards,
--Paul (02)
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 7:28, "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dear Patrick,
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA Inc.
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> 1-908-561-3416
>
>
>> -----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 >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|