On Wed, February 12, 2014 13:21, John McClure wrote:
> I wouldn't say a female (an adjective) is a person (noun). (01)
The word "female" is both an adjective and a noun. (02)
Female people (persons) are people/persons. (03)
Female plants, female non-human animals, and female organism parts are
not people/persons. (04)
> Neither female nor male is a subtype of person.
> I argue there are obvious guidelines relating grammatical stuff to
> ontology stuff.
> For instance, adjective-things are never subtypes of noun-things. (05)
Ontologies don't need to deal with words and parts of speech.
The concept of adjective-things and noun-things is not useful
in general for ontologies. The ways a language uses terms for
various concepts can be informative, of course. (06)
-- doug f (07)
> On 2/12/2014 5:28 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>> 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".
>
> On 2/12/2014 5:28 AM, Matthew West 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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|