Pat and Ingvar, (01)
PH> Words are ontologically floppy. For another example, when you
> say, above, that something is "composed of" a number and a
> reference, do you mean that it is literally the pair of those
> things? Or that those are defining properties of it? Or simply
> that those are properties of it? These would all give different
> formalizations in an ontology. (02)
I agree that the discipline of using a "foreign" language, such as
mathematical notation, imposes a strong discipline that exposes
the implicit assumptions that lurk in NLs. (03)
IJ> I think the solution is to accept the existence of both properties
> and tropes (property instances). So: two sticks, one property, two
> property instances, one length value of that property that are
> instantiated twice. (04)
I agree. My only suggestion is to prefer the term "property instance"
to "trope" when we're talking about ontology. (05)
John (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (07)
|