Again I agree completely with you on the more productive path. That was what
I had in mind. (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bateman [mailto:bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 2:52 PM
To: henson graves
Cc: 'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'; 'Venkata Ramayya'
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Concept Map of Ontology Entities/Elements (02)
Am 07.03.2012 21:11, schrieb henson graves:
> 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, (03)
Of course; but the consideration of the relationship between artefacts and
specifications of artefacts is orthogonal to both the dimensions of
general-specific and abstract-specific. Usually specifications and the
artefacts produced by those specifications are concrete. The 'intension' of
a specification, however, i.e., the 'abstract' entity that it describes, is
certainly (quasi-)abstract (Smith), as are many meanings, if not all.
Considering the relation (to be enforced) between the quasi-abstract entity
of the car-as-it-should-be and the actual car seems to be the more
productive ontological path to follow than either general-specific,
abstract-concrete, which both pick out other aspects of what is going on. (04)
John B. (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (06)
|