Hi John, (01)
As it happens, there was a conversation about "Thing" versus "Entity" on
this very forum at the time I was thinking about what words to use. (02)
I came down on the side of "Thing" for the following reasons: (03)
1. I wanted to make it explicitly clear to any reader of the model, that
this was not "Yet Another Data Model" but a model of real things.
Sometimes it helps to call upon the Ango-Saxon language for words that
have not been muddied by previous usages. I had previously tried to
present computationally independent models of concepts without doing
this, and the result was always that they were reviewed as though they
were data models. How to make it clear that the model is intended to be
a model of real things in the world? A new, untainted word was required. (04)
2. I decided to use the OWL language, against the advice from many
well-informed folks including yourself, because we needed something
which was recognized in the technology community and which would have
tooling going forward, and because the OWL language, having "Thing" at
the top, made it explicitly clear that it was a model of things in the
world and not a model of someone's data. So it matched my instinct to
use the word "Thing" as above. (05)
3. The word "Entity" which you proposed at the time, while more
precisely correct, suffered from the problem which Pat notes in a later
email, namely that it has a well-worn meaning in the data modeling
world. The last thing we needed was something that could be mistaken for
a model of database "entities". (06)
Of course the word "Thing" is often interpreted as being a concrete,
continuant, independent thing. To get around this, we made sure that
everything in the model was framed in terms of three sets of partitions:
Independent Thing / Relative Thing / Mediating Thing; Continuant Thing /
Occurrent Thing; and Concrete / Abstract. By appending the word "Thing"
to those, it is hopefully clearer that the term "Thing" at the top of
the model encompasses all of those, and not simply those things you can
poke with a stick. (07)
I took your advice to make sure that the top level of the ontology was
as under-specified as possible, so that these partitions were framed
with a minimum of additional properties (Relative Thing necessarily
requires a couple of properties). (08)
I take your point about learning FOL, and we've tried to base everything
in FIBO on FOL via the use of a simple sub-set of OWL. Not ideal
perhaps, but this has been a learning curve, and the primary requirement
was to come up with a formal, unambiguous set of concepts for the
financial industry which is both technology-independent and logically
complete (and then to explain it to business, as noted in my previous
email). Since starting down this path I have learned a lot from people
on this Forum, and I've always made it clear that I am here to learn
from those better educated than myself in this area. At the same time,
we have delivered something of value to the financial community and I
think that is something to be proud of. A lot of very techically
competent people have been involved in bringing this to completion, and
I have sometimes struggled to convey to the more technical folks, the
importance of ensuring we apply the kind of thinking we can find in this
Forum. That remains a priority for me. (09)
Mike (010)
On 14/12/2014 20:47, John F Sowa wrote:
> On 12/14/2014 2:17 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> How is it possible for educated adult human beings to get themselves
>> so unbelievably muddled over what should be one of the simplest
>> ideas ever stated?
> Very easily. They try to define the top level of an ontology.
>
> My recommendation is to use the technical term 'Entity' rather
> than the common English word 'thing'.
>
> I state only one axiom for Entity, which says absolutely nothing:
>
> (∀x)Entity(x).
>
> I keep telling people to stop trying to define the undefinable.
> Just use simple FOL to define things. Then translate the FOL
> to simple English sentences for anyone who doesn't know FOL.
>
> The translation of (∀x)Entity(x) is "Everything is an entity."
> End of story. Nothing more can or should be said -- except in
> a comment to stop people from trying to say more.
>
> John
>
> PS: People who don't know FOL should learn FOL before they attempt
> to define anything. Learning OWL is not recommended -- it poisons
> the mind by causing people to think that they know something.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (011)
--
Mike Bennett
Director, Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street, London EC2A 2BF
Tel (UK): +44 20 7917 9522
Tel (US): +1 646 583 2095
www.hypercube.co.uk (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|