Matthew,
To answer your Venn (Zen?) question: (01)
[MW] > >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).
>
No problem. The relationship between C1 and M1 is
**diachronic**identity, which is very different from logical or mathematical
identity. From the "ship of Theseus" paradox, you know that identifying two
related objects at different times as the 'same' object is a conventional,
and not a logical issue. Yes, in a 3D ontology the subtype relation holds,
and linguistic usage tends to be 3D. How many times have you heard someone
say "I'm not the same person I was when I was a kid". I know that I'm not,
though my Social Security number hasn't changed; thank heaven for the
statute of limitations.
As you know from our earlier discussions, I am absolutely convinced
that any world situation that can be represented by 3D can be represented by
4D, and vice-versa; and each can be translated into the other. You just
can't have 3D partisans saying that there is no such thing as a 4D entity,
or vice versa. So the choice is one of personal preference, or in some
cases, better suitability (greater computational efficiency) for specific
applications. I can work with either, I just find 3D easier for my
purposes. We ontologists really, really have to avoid religious assertions
that certain things cannot exist - unless they are logically inconsistent.
In 4D, I agree there is no subtype relation between "boy" and "person",
but of course that depends on your logical definition of "boy" and "person".
The definitions are different in 3D from those in 4D.
If you like paradoxes with time slices consider the hypothesis once
presented by Feynmann, who thought that all electrons have the same mass and
charge because they are all the *same* electron. They just move backward
and forward in time, showing up in our world in the forward direction in
different places. Each electron we observe would be just a "time slice" of
that one unique electron, provided that backward motion in time is possible.
Actually physically possible, though no one seriously believes it. Amusing
thought experiment, though. (02)
Pat (03)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416 (04)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
>Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:14 PM
>To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man
>
>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
> (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)
|