From COSMO:
<owl:objectproperty rdf:id="wasOfType">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#NonFunctionalObject">
<rdfs:comment>'wasOfType' relates a 'NonFunctionalObject' to
the type that it was originally, before becoming non-functional.
For example, the FuneraryAshes of a Person were of type
'Person' at one time.</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:domain></owl:objectproperty> (01)
Is this not relevant to much what I have been saying, and to this thread
too?
/throwing his hands up in the air... jmc (02)
On 2/13/2014 3:14 PM, Matthew West wrote:
> Dear Pat,
> Can I ask you to do an experiment with Venn diagrams.
> Take a piece of paper and draw a circle, label it child, and place (say)
> three labels inside: C1, C2, C3. Now draw another circle, label it man, and
> draw three labels inside, M1, M2, M3. Now, if each child is a person, and
> each man is a person ( which is what subtype/supertype means) then you can
> draw a circle round your first two circles and label it person.
> The problem is that C1 grows up to be M1, and C2 to be M2 and C3 to be M3,
> so you probably want to say that they are the "same" person, but we have
> two.
> You can try this the other way round. Draw a circle, name it person, with
> three labels, P1, P2, P3. Now draw a circle round the subtype that is the
> children, and another one that is the men.
> Do you still think that the relationship between child and person is
> subtype/supertype? (There is a relationship, it just is not
> subtype/supertype).
>
> Regards
> Matthew
>
> Matthew,
> It seems from your earlier post that 'StateOfPerson' is a class of time
> slices of Person, and 'Boy' is a subclass of 'StateOfPerson'. That works
> logically, but most languages adopt the view of objects as endurants, and in
> that view, 'Boy' would be a subclass of 'Person', meaning that every
> instance of 'Boy' is an instance of 'Person'. It is true that 'Boy' is also
> a Role of a person, which has a finite time extension. That view can be
> accommodated in an endurant (3D) ontology. My concern, as I mentioned
> before, is to keep the ontology as close as possible to linguistic usage,
> and that can be done in 3D with clean logical relations, when one
> distinguishes the different meanings that a word may take in different
> contexts.
>
> For some specific applications a strictly 4D ontology may work fine. We can
> of course create translations from 3D to 4D and back when needed. I just
> prefer to work in 3D because it seems easier to create labels that serve as
> better mnemonics to help the user to recall the intended meaning. Making
> an ontology easy to use is to me an important goal.
>
> 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 Matthew West
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:29 AM
> >To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> >Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man > >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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
|