[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] System Components

To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:24:10 -0700
Message-id: <A7AE68A8-2B54-467A-947E-F9432DF3776F@xxxxxxxxx>
I do not find 'role' mentioned in the given URL regarding 'sole'
Elsewhere in widipedia is "role posits the following about social behaviour: #3. Roles are occupied by individuals, who are called actors."
Overall It seems that role specifies a location in a coordinate system, not an operator such as actor.

Seems to me that the 
On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:50 AM, Chris Partridge wrote:

One sense, for another see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole
‘role’ covers a wide variety of meanings
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: 30 January 2012 23:33
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] System Components
According to David Taylor, Object Technology for Managers, role is simply an authorization to act, not the operator that acts. Operators inherit roles then process operands accordingly. 
On Jan 30, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Nicola Guarino wrote:

Dear Matthew, 
          just a few clarifications concerning my lab's work. Note that I am just trying to catch up with the (main points of the) discussion, and I am probably missing many things. I look forward to seeing the discussion synthesised somewhere, in order to allow everybody to understand how we progress.
Matthew West writes (answering to Giancarlo Guizzardi):
An alternative to this issue can be thought of by considering qua individuals (e.g.http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/Papers/KR04MasoloC.pdf)
MW: This is very similar to the 4D, but is relatively opaque, and gives more individuals than if you adopt extensional identity in 4D. In this case playing multiple roles simultaneously does not give multiple states, but one state playing multiple roles. A bit more elegant I think.
MW: This seems to generalise the idea above a bit. One problem I have with both of these is that (if I understand it correctly) they treat social and other roles as purely classes. This gives me a problem if I want to shake the hand of the president, or start P101, because classes are abstract, and these are just things you can’t do to them. This is central to what I find unsatisfactory with these kinds of approaches. The situation is confused by there being several different meanings to role, from the participant role in an activity or state, to the component in a system, or social role with significant differences in character between them.
The second paper is still work in progress, while the first one is more established. In both cases, however, for sure the approach does not only admit roles as "pure classes", and new kinds of individuals are introduced. I defend a similar, although slightly different approach in the paper below, which explicitly considers the parts replacement problem (among other things) by introducing the notion of a "virtual individual" (NOTE - this is still a draft - comments welcome):

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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 

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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>