|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:34:07 -0500|
Dividing descriptors into categories like this for this purpose has a long and distinquished history in system design, from Peter Coad's 'colors', through Rebecca Wirfs-Brock to Trygve Regenskaug's Role Modelling, to Evans "Domain Driven Design."
That is, I might, and will, for the nonce, use the term 'substantive' to describe what your 'actualist metaphysical' ontology recognizes as 'existing' things that have affordances. Like Trees, Houses, Tornadoes, real number theory? And, you seem to recognize also agents, as either something different or a special kind of real thing, but one that seems to have to exist FIRST. Personally, I am not interested in metaphysical ontology, per se, but the structural role of descriptors, in the organization, design, and behavior of systems.
This is the first time, Ron, I have heard what to me is a good explanation of what distinquishes substantives from properties and other kinds of descriptors (as the most general term for something that can be used as a predicate,from 'tree' to 'tall' to 'brown' to 'lumberjack' to 'loves' to 'Saturday' to 'cut down on'. )
I think that you hit the mark, as I consider the circling controversies about Person, Man, Boy, among all of us with different, unshared assumptions, agendas and knowledge.
So, even when one starts, with an undifferentiated set of descriptors or properties, as in typical predictate calculus, it is very useful in explaining systems, to categorize the descriptors, into the kinds of category names that are often used in this forum, such as 'role'. They are akin to grammatical categories for the ontology, related to linquistic grammatical categories in the way that Paul Builelaar's work on LEMON describes, as Leo Orbst recently pointed us to. (For example, when linquists discuss whether a language has adjectives, they use the word 'property' to describe the language-independent concept that, in most languages, is sometimes represented by the grammatical category 'adjective'. These categories are, I think, what one should find in an 'upper' ontology. (The problem is, that these categories don't make for neat deep subtype hierachies. But solving that problem is a different subject.)
So, I find your suggestion at the core of the first step for organizing a computational ontology. Especially, I believe that treating responsiblity as a basic notion, or some broader varient, such as intension, is critical to the most effective way to design human designed systems, like spaceflight missions, as well as to understand the evolution of the systems in which people participate, such as international financial services, the profession of microbiology, or the family.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Ronald Stamper <stamper.measur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man, rrovetto|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] 3D Movies From a Single-Pixel Camera, John F Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] FYI - Darpa Launches Project To Revolutionize Web Search - Nextgov - 2014.02.10, Peter Yim|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] 3D Movies From a Single-Pixel Camera, John F Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|