On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Matthew West wrote:
>> -1 for 15926, with arguments:
>> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/west.pdf
>
> Which are answered in:
>
>http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/documents/Reponse%20to%20Barry%20Smith%20Comments%20on%20ISO%2015926.htm
> (01)
Barry's criticisms of the use of a non-well-founded set theory like Aczel's AFA
are on the money. He notes that it is a greatly overpowered for the needs of
the document; it entails, among other things, the entire massively infinite
hierarchy of transfinite numbers. (How massive? So massive that there is no
transfinite number big enough to number them.) Moreover, ironically, AFA and
its like are in a sense underpowered as well for the given task. Notably, as I
understand the document, THING is itself a class that contains, well,
everything. The existence of such a class (understood as a non-wf set) is
flatly inconsistent with non-wf ZF spinoffs like AFA. (02)
Bottom line (as John Sowa likes to say): The underlying class theory of the
document needs to be thrown out and rethought completely. (03)
Chris Menzel (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (05)
|