Re: [ontology-summit] Roles, Fillers, and Role Relations

["John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Matthew,    (01)

That depends on how you define Role and PhysicalObject:    (02)

> The problem with a subtype of both Role and PhysicalObject is that the
> instances of Role are themselves classes, whilst the instances of
> PhysicalObject are particulars. This means of course that the instances
> of a subtype of an intersection of these two would be both a class and a
> particular, which are normally considered disjoint.    (03)

In my CS book, I distinguished role types from natural types.  If you
define both by monadic predicates, you can just take their conjunction.
I also elaborated that discussion in my Knowledge Representation book.
The KR ontology is also on my website:  http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology    (04)

For example, the role Driver and the natural type Male can be defined
by predicates Driver(x) and Male(x).  A male driver is defined by
their conjunction:  Male(x) & Driver(x).    (05)

If you prefer to talk about sets in 4D, you can talk about the extension
of the predicates Male(x) and Driver(x) in any time slice.  Then the
extension of the conjunction of the two predicates is the intersection
of the two sets.    (06)

John    (07)


_________________________________________________________________
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/     (08)