To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:23:57 -0400 |
Message-id: | <CALuUwtCGL61sFos66O17cpyH7NPtgag-tDiVf-ZUe0Zu1Cug8A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Chris Mungall <cjmungall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Ah, but that is part of the problem, FOL is exactly an unatural constraint. In common logic, or most any HOL, you *can't* reify a relation or an attributed. Sometimes, we want color to only be an attribute, say, It means, as Aristotle said, something that can be the subject or the object of a sentence, something we can talk about as an indepedent thing. For example, the color brown is a first class thing, but in the _expression_ 'the bear's color' we can get at color or via the bear.
Sure, bananas and ripening as surely distinct conceptual categories. I am saying exactly that people who make rules about what *can't* be 'allowed' as a conceptual category, that people using various languages DO allow, are creating problems where none exist outside the rules they made. And, if they SAY you can't do this, the burden of proof would be on them. I think any such 'proofs' require that you put on some straightjacket first. Then it is hard to reach up in the tree for that banana. Those straightjackets include UML and Owl, as the worst offenders, given some special status to descriptors that take one argument, and calling the 'classes', not allowing and even FOL, that only extends this so as to allow descriptors to take any number of arguments. None of these allow things that are happening in time, and none gives you ways to transform one to the other, so that **being married** is the necessary result of **getting** married, and we can easily transform from one view (that sees a world of static 'facts') to the other (the world of happenings). To quote Pat Hayes: "But let me suggest that the real constraint here is that when
something is considered to be an object or a process, then each way of
thinking of it has to come with a particular way of formalizing it. This
is completely unnecessary, and if this purely syntactic constraint is
lifted, then the philosophical disagreements become just that, purely
philosophical matters, irrelevant to the actual practice of ontology
building" _________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies, Rich Cooper |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies., Thomas Johnston |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies, Chris Mungall |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies, Matthew West |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |