[ontology-summit] Granularity and reuse (Was Re: [Reusable Content] Char

[Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 30, 2014 1:07 PM, "Barkmeyer, Edward J" <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> A toxic fluid is a fluid that has at least one component that is harmful to humans who are exposed to it by skin contact, eye contact or inhalation. 
[...]
> The constraint is a definitive axiom for ‘toxic fluid’, as distinct from other fluids.  [...]  This might be formally phrased as:  F is a toxic fluid if and only if F has at least one toxic component, or even just :  Each toxic fluid has at least one toxic component, where ‘toxic component’ is a primitive type in the ontology with the above natural language definition. 
>The point is that, however phrased, this axiom cannot be separated from the module that introduces the term ‘toxic fluid’ without robbing the term of its primary semantic load.

[I am extracting part of Ed's post in order to reuse it for a different purpose. They are not issues related to the point for which the example was created]

1. It is possible to define toxicity independent of the concept of fluids.

2. A substance may only be toxic to certain species, at certain doses, over certain periods of time.

3. Two non-toxic components may form a toxic component (e.g. binary nerve agents).

4. Two toxic components may form a non toxic mixture (nerve agent + atropine).

5. A theory of toxicity and a theory of fluids may separable.  It may be possible to combine the two without the user having to fully understand the contents of the separate theories- just the higher level concepts of toxicity and fluidity.

6. There may be assumptions built in to a theory that are deliberate, and which limit its use for some applications. For example, a model of toxicity may be based on laboratory conditions, animal models or certain temperatures and wind speeds. The EPA may produce rules using different principles to guidelines that NIST might produce.
These assumptions might themselves be formalized, so that inconsistent background assumptions can be caught. Whether the inconsistent axioms can be removed without causing the theory to become unusable is a problem.

Simon

Simon

_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)