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

[John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/13/2014 1:56 PM, John McClure wrote:

Nice summary Robert. With respect to legal definition of a Person, I suggest Entity as a supertype of Person, an Association being a subtype thereof.  In this way, the common bundle of legal rights accorded to Associations and Persons can be delineated. Also, I thought rigidity applies to property associations, not classes. Since a class is defined in part by the set of properties associable to its individuals in a rigid semirigid or unrigid manner, it's not helpful/factual to ever characterize a *class* as rigid or not.
/jmc

Agreed, it is a nice summary. I think we need to make the distinction between a reference to an instance of a person and a reference to an abstract class. Perhaps this goes back to the distinction between uses for dbases and AI. In my view "person" is an unspecified pronoun for an unspecified individual or person-type entity. For example, your spouse wakes you up and says, "There's a person in the basement. What are you going to do?" Maybe that "preson" is a raccoon. This is why I think an info statement about intended use is very important..

-John Bottoms

On 2/13/2014 12:25 AM, rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

An on-the-spot summary of ways to model girl/boy, woman/man, some of which have been stated in the thread, and not all of which are necessarily viable:

- as a state of a person
- as temporal stages of a human being (or person)
- as temporal stages of the life of a human being
- as a property of a human being
- as roles played by a human being in some early stages of their life. The roles are automatically realized once the person reaches, say, a certain age or once certain biological or psychological changes occur.

A boy/girl as a person in early stages of their life. The boundaries of these stages can be specified by social convention, e.g., adulthood as 17,18 in certain countries, etc., or based on certain biophysiological or psychological changes or markers.

Aside from that, and on this statement made: "I don't disagree that Person is rigid, while Boy and Man are not. [Of course, the Supreme Court can decide that various entities are Persons or not, which means that Person is not rigid.  8)# ]"
Speaking from a philosophical perspective, IF Person (a class that has as instances, you and me, etc.) is not rigid, it is certainly not so because of the Supreme Court.     

WRT Person being an endurant/continuant or perdurant/occurrent, cases can be made for either.

Respectfully,
Robert

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You should have a look at Paul Builelaar et al's work on LEMON: e.g., http://lexinfo.net/lemon-cookbook.pdf. Builds on earlier work on LMF, etc.

Thanks,
Leo

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog

>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:41 PM
>To: William Frank
>Cc: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man
>
>On Wed, February 12, 2014 15:26, William Frank wrote:
>> ...
>> I would go further than your:
>
>> "Ontologies don't need to deal with words and parts of speech."
>
>> Ontologies CAN'T be based on words and parts of speech.  OTOH, one goal of
>> an ontology would be to permit one to *map* between the ontology and the
>> words and parts of speech found in any human language.
>
>An ontology that does this deals with words and parts of speech.
>
>
>I would say that an ontology of natural language must be based on words
>and parts of speech -- as classes of objects in the ontology.  An NL ontology
>could use such an ontology to map between instances of NL words, phrases,
>clauses, and sentences and other concepts.
>
>-- doug foxvog
>
>> Wm
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:59 PM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, February 12, 2014 13:21, John McClure wrote:
>>> > I wouldn't say a female (an adjective) is a person (noun).
>>>
>>> The word "female" is both an adjective and a noun.
>>>
>>> Female people (persons) are people/persons.
>>>
>>> Female plants, female non-human animals, and female organism parts are
>>> not people/persons.
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> -- doug f
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 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    (01)