Am 07.03.2012 20:13, schrieb henson graves:
> I am not sure I
> buy that abstract to concrete is really a different axis than general to
> specific. Perhaps you could give your reasons for this. (01)
How about: (02)
general-to-specific: animate entity-animal-mammal-cow
abstract-to-concrete: religion-Fermat's theorem-this email (03)
general-to-specific may co-describe entities (following
the isa-hierarchy: the set of entities included under
the denotation of the term gets bigger); (04)
abstract-to-concrete describe (necessarily) different entities
(different branches; non-intersecting sets of referents). (05)
[So this does not appear to fit with the dimensions
of verticality and horizontality suggested either...
so I don't know if a concept map would help too
much... :-)] (06)
The two dimensions can be combined: a particular religion
is still an abstract entity, it is just a more specific
kind of abstract entity.... (07)
> Certainly ontologies used to represent a factory and
> the things it builds comes in multiple levels of generality - or
> abstractness if they are distinct. (08)
a factory builds cars: the cars are not abstract, but
'cars' is a rather more general description
of what it produces than 'red corvettes'.
I don't see it as producing anything abstract though
(I mean, in relation to the cars, it might produce other things,
such as a feeling of wealth and security, which might
be abstract... ) (09)
John B. (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (011)
|