On 3/10/2015 1:31 PM, Simon
Spero wrote:
> There are also named
individuals that can appear in the T-Box - SH_O_IN(D).
JFS> There are some
privileged individuals, such as the earth and the sun,
which are essential for defining
geographical coordinates, times, days,
nights, etc. For any
country X, it's impossible to specify the laws
of X without referring to X and
some named entities in X. And for any
business Y, the business types
and rules used for Y will normally make
many references to Y and some
named entities in Y.
John,
By “Individuals”, you mean objects restricted
to instances of a TBox type, and by “privileged”, you mean that
there are constant instances used to initialize the “privileged
individuals” in my interpretation of that statement. Perhaps certain
of the functions and methods also check to see if privileges are available for
each instance by its property values before doing their respective functional
and methodical things.
So if I have followed that correctly, that means you can
use classes instead of Sets for the TBox types. There is no TBox that has
its own type as an instance, but every instance of a TBox has a copy of the
TBox’s initial value instances.
Is that correct? There is no need to have TBoxes
that contain themselves as instances? Therefore a class is an adequate
implementation of the TBox concept?
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
www DOT EnglishLogicKernel DOT
com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT
com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:55 AM
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] [ontology-summit] Proposed RDF FHIR syntax
feedback
On 3/10/2015 1:31 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
> There are also named individuals that can appear in
the T-Box - SH_O_IN(D).
There are some privileged individuals, such as the earth
and the sun,
which are essential for defining geographical
coordinates, times, days,
nights, etc. For any country X, it's impossible to
specify the laws
of X without referring to X and some named entities in
X. And for any
business Y, the business types and rules used for Y will
normally make
many references to Y and some named entities in Y.
> There can also be anonymous individuals as
annotation values. (This
> triggered a horrible bug in the OWLAPI when
used with punning.)
Yes. And my major complaint about OWL is that it
should be called
*An* Ontology Language, not *The* Ontology
Language. Some things we
know about the currently popular languages: (a)
they have changed
considerably over the past 10 years, (b) they will change
even more
over the next 10 years, and (c) there are and will be
many more
languages that will have to interoperate with them.
For some perspective on the history of interoperable
systems and
proposed standards for them, see
http://www.jfsowa.com/ikl
General principle: Flexible guidelines for ontology
design are
useful. But rigid standards will be obsolete as
soon as they're
written. I agree with the comments below by Pat
Hayes.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 2:31 PM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: David Booth; public-semweb-lifesci@xxxxxx; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
Comments in-line:
On Mar 8, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Anthony Mallia
<amallia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> David,
> I believe that this is an important aspect to
distinguish between the
type or TBox and the instance or ABox. A simple
justification is that
they come from different authorities (and end points) -
HL7 or an EHR
system.
If there is any other reason to distinguish them, please
list as many of
them as you can. If this is the only reason, I would
strongly suggest
that it is not a sufficient reason for introducing this
rigid
distinction into the foundation. It would be better to
provide a
mechanism to allow the kind of originating authority to
be specified
explicitly. The question to ask is, what utility in
actual processing
will arise from having this distinction rigidly enforced?
The problems
it (artificially) introduces is that it makes most OWL2
ontologies
unclassifiable, since many of them contain both class and
instance data:
in fact, OWL2 punning makes this very distinction rather
hard to detect,
since a class in OWL 2 may itself be an instance; and it
forces users to
make a needless classification decision which may give
rise to errors
and difficulties in processing.
> However I would strongly recommend that we DO
NOT REDEFINE Ontology
from its definition in the W3C specs - this will cause
major confusion.
> Here is the extract from OWL2:
> "OWL 2 ontologies provide classes,
properties, individuals, and data
values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2
ontologies can be
used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2
ontologies
themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF
documents."
That defines an OWL2 ontology. If you are planning to use
other
representation languages, I would suggest adopting a
wider definition of
the bare concept of 'ontology'. By the way, this topic -
how to define
'ontology' - was discussed in depth for a year in the
Ontolog forum. I
recommend reading
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique
and the surrounding discussions before coming to a
decision.
> So I am recommending two subtypes of Ontology
:
> INSTANCE ONTOLOGY (INSTANCE for short)
contains Individuals, their
Property assertions and their data values but may refer
to contents of
MODEL(s)
I think you mean it contains individual *names*, right?
When you say 'may refer to', what distinction are you
making between
'refer to' and 'contain'? Do you mean it will not contain
the
*definitions* of the classes, etc.? But there is no
concept of
'definition' in the RDF/OWL world.
> MODEL ONTOLOGY (MODEL for short) contains
Classes, ObjectProperties,
DataProperties and Datatypes
And what will you do with something which contains large
amounts of
instance data, described using a mixture of vocabulary
from a number of
other ontologies and a small number of class and property
definitions
local to it? Because this is, if anything, the normal
situation in
Web-based ontology work.
> INSTANCE and MODEL are disjoint
Which, if enforced, is going to create errors and blocks
to processing
for no functional reason. Why do this? It is a bad design
decision to
introduce distinctions that have no utility other than to
be enforced
and generate error messages. If this is a genuine type
distinction, then
you should be able to say what reasons there are for a
processor to know
what type an ontology is. How will an INSTANCE be
processed differently
from a MODEL?
> but there can be Ontologies (neither of these
subtypes) which combine
them through merge or import and would be used for
reasoning.
> It should not be necessary to separate these
two by MIME type - they
will be handled quite differently e.g. import statements
will know
exactly what they are trying to do.
importing is completely transparent to this distinction.
Both of them
(and any hybrids) will be imported in the same way using
the same
mechanisms. This is part of the RDF/OWL design.
Pat Hayes
_________________________________________________________________
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