>
>If a term, such as 'installed product', is widely used in some field,
>any philosopher who argues against using it as a category should climb
>back into his or her ivory tower. The solution for Y is to add a
>new category InstalledProduct with the definition "a product that
>has been installed." That enables X and Y to interoperate. (01)
One problem is if a given term widely used in some field is not really a
(rigid) category per se, but instead has other meta-properties associated with
it (along the lines of e.g., OntoClean). Example: Student. Employee. Buyer.
Seller. And so on. These are roles, and can be characterized in a role
hierarchy, if one wishes. But e.g., Student is not a subclass of Person (or,
more clearly Human). Or phased sortals such as Teenager, Caterpillar, etc.
Artifacts introduce additional issues. Obviously one needs these terms in an
ontology, but the representation does matter. (02)
Thanks,
Leo (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)
|