On 3/20/2012 1:11 PM, Todd J Schneider wrote:
> We discovered we had an implicit assumption that the common notions
> of 'class/concept' and 'relations/properties' would
> be valid for all representation languages. (01)
That is why I prefer to use a foundational logic with a minimum
amount of terminology. Then all other terms can be defined,
explained, or related to one another through the basic terms.
You don't even have to agree on a specific logic or notation.
Just use the following minimal set of terms, which can be
related directly to many different logics. (02)
Minimal set: (03)
1. Boolean operators. (04)
2. Quantifiers (some & every, or the symbols for them). (05)
3. Relations or predicates. (06)
4. Sets. (07)
Translations: (08)
1. Use 'monadic relation' for every occurrence of property, attribute,
characteristic, feature, facet, concept, or type. (09)
2. Use 'dyadic relation' instead of role. (010)
3. Treat a class as a composite of a type and a set. Then you can
clearly distinguish whether you mean the monadic relation that
specifies the type or the set of all instances of that type. (011)
4. Instead of using the modal terms necessary, mandatory, required,
or obligatory, state some constraints that must be true. (012)
Something is necessary, mandatory, required, or obligatory
if it is implied by the constraints. It is possible,
optional, or permissible if it is consistent with the
constraints. (013)
John (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (015)
|