A helpful discussion. However, I am sure that the ordained thread members
will fix that. (01)
I find the combination of the hierarchies more attractive. (02)
There may be a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say regarding
producing cars. All I was noting there is that both a specification for a
car and a manufactured car are artifacts in the physical world but they are
certainly different. The specification is an information object may be with
a paper realization, however a car is something else. For manufacturing a
lot of what needs to be represented is the relationship between cars and
their specifications, and plans to produce them, and methods used to test
them, etc. Car manufacturing enterprises product a lot of concrete
artifacts, mostly paper, that are not cars. (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bateman [mailto:bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 1:40 PM
To: henson graves
Cc: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion; 'Venkata Ramayya'
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Concept Map of Ontology Entities/Elements (04)
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. (05)
How about: (06)
general-to-specific: animate entity-animal-mammal-cow
abstract-to-concrete: religion-Fermat's theorem-this email (07)
general-to-specific may co-describe entities (following the isa-hierarchy:
the set of entities included under the denotation of the term gets bigger); (08)
abstract-to-concrete describe (necessarily) different entities (different
branches; non-intersecting sets of referents). (09)
[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... :-)] (010)
The two dimensions can be combined: a particular religion is still an
abstract entity, it is just a more specific kind of abstract entity.... (011)
> Certainly ontologies used to represent a factory and the things it
> builds comes in multiple levels of generality - or abstractness if
> they are distinct. (012)
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... ) (013)
John B. (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (015)
|