It looks like you are describing something similar to a qua object, which has no identity. Not sure we are talking about the same thing. Bishop in this case is a particular bishop, such as the ‘Bishop of Liverpool’ – a corporation sole, a legal person. If we take the approach you suggest, what happens when the next person gets instantiated as the (same) bishop. In what sense is it the ‘same’ bishop – the bishop continues to own the land, etc. Wouldn’t Occam’s razor prefer a simple agent. Regards, Chris From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Berg-Cross
Sent: 31 January 2012 21:47
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] System Components Chris,
Chris noted>I find it odd that a qua object can own property, have responsibilities, declare war (Monarchs), etc. – which the person cannot do.
Thematic roles may be thought of as a set of types when objects participate in processes. There is a general notion of the role, but it gets instantiated in an object, such as a person who has a bishop role and thus participates in the bishop processes. SOCoP Executive Secretary On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Chris Partridge <partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: You will find references to ‘bishop’ in the article. I understand that Nicola and Giancarlo (and others) would regard ‘bishop’ as a role, qua object, etc. Historically this ‘role’ was introduced to ensure that legal title to property given to the church remained with the bishop (corporation sole) rather than inherited by his kin. It was then extended to monarchs. I find it odd that a qua object can own property, have responsibilities, declare war (Monarchs), etc. – which the person cannot do. I also cannot see how this would work if the corporation sole did not have some kind of identity. 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: ‘role’ covers a wide variety of meanings 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: 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): 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/
--
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|