ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:29:45 -0000
Message-id: <04a701cf2820$6892a820$39b7f860$@gmail.com>
Dear Paul,
Indeed. There are also multiple pejorative uses of "boy" as well.
Regards
Matthew    (01)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Tyson
Sent: 12 February 2014 15:19
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man    (02)

Up to now, I had assumed the distinction between a man and a boy was which
could do a man's work.    (03)

Regards,
--Paul    (04)

> 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
>     (05)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (06)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>