Is it time to vote yet? (Are we there yet :-)) (01)
I vote for class and subclass, rather than saying a dog is a subtype of
animal. (02)
Regards,
Antoinette (03)
Antoinette Arsic
Sr. Information Systems Engineer
The MITRE Corporation
703-337-9016 (VOIP)
*703-983-5286 (new office number, was 883)
*443-567-2703 (new cell) (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles D
Turnitsa
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:05 PM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class et al. (05)
If a dog is a subtype of animal, do you then define subtype finely
enough
so that animal is necessarily a universal of dog? (06)
Chuck (07)
Charles Turnitsa
Lab Manager/Project Scientist
Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
Old Dominion University Research Foundation
7000 College Drive
Suffolk, Virginia 23435
(757) 638-6315 (voice)
(757) 686-6214 (fax)
cturnits@xxxxxxx (08)
ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/18/2006 12:57:31 PM: (09)
> A dog is a sort of animal.
> A dog is a type of animal.
> A dog is a kind of animal.
> A dog is a species of animal.
> A dog is a category of animal.
> A dog is a class of dog.
>
> Not (for what it's worth):
> A dog is a concept of animal.
>
> And not even:
> A dog is a universal of animal.
>
> However, we do have, by analogy with
>
> A dog is a subtype of animal.
>
> Also:
>
> A dog is a subuniversal of animal.
>
> BS
>
> At 06:55 PM 1/18/2006, you wrote:
> >Where or when would you use sort? A dog is a sort of family member?
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Antoinette
> >
> >Antoinette Arsic
> >Sr. Information Systems Engineer
> >The MITRE Corporation
> >703-337-9016 (VOIP)
> >*703-983-5286 (new office number, was 883)
> >*443-567-2703 (new cell)
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:47 PM
> >To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> >Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class et al.
> >
> >At 05:25 PM 1/18/2006, you wrote:
> > >COSMO-WG:
> > > This is a first note using the ONTAC-dev listserver. I did
not
> > >receive any objections to moving our discussions to the ONTAC-dev
> > >server, so all COSMO-WG members should find themselves on the
list.
> > >
> > > Regarding the issue of what to call a 'Class' - Type? . . .
> > >
> > >First a clarification:
> > >
> > > >> The first [concept] is a disaster, though it is used e.g.
> > >by ISO in its current terminology standards, and indeed by our
Great
> > >Leader.
> > >
> > >[PC] modestly accepting what I believe is a reference to my
frequent
> > >use of the term "concept", please understand that I fully
sympathize
> > >with Barry's emphasis on the need to distinguish between real
things
> >in
> > >the world and the concepts people have of them and the terms by
which
> > >we refer to them. But I am not aware yet of a usage that will
serve
> > >all of our purposes, and have noticed some problems caused by a
lack
> >of
> > >standardization of these terms. So it's probably a good idea to
try
> >to
> > >agree on a terminology.
> > >
> > >I need a term that means "a class or relation or function or
instance
> > >or metaclass or function term or axiom or procedural rule or
attached
> > >method or any other element that we would want to put into an
ontology
> > >that represents some element of meaning, as distinct from the
actual
> > >things in the world to which they refer and as distinct from the
> > >specific manner in which they happen to be represented." or "some
> > >abstract entity which is represented by symbols in our ontologies,
is
> > >intended to correspond in structure to some idea people have about
> > >something or other, and refers to something other than itself".
> >
> >I think that with this vegetable garden you are just proving my
point.
> >
> > >For that, I have been using the term "concept". Occasionally in
> > >informal notes I may use "notion". In deference to Barry's
dislike of
> > >'concept', I have occasionally used the phrase "Class or
relation",
> > >though that leaves out all those other things I want to refer to.
> > >
> > >I think this is close to what is usually intended by references to
> > >Ogden's "meaning triangle":
> > >
> > >
> > > Concept
> > > / \
> > > / \
> > > / \
> > > Symbol/Term --- Referent/Thing/Real-world Object
> > >
> > >Does anyone else have a candidate for a general term we should use
to
> > >refer to any of the constituent elements of our ontologies?
> >
> >Term
> >
> > >----
> > >When I mean a "Class" (Type, Category, Kind) I say "Class".
> >
> >This is not an element in the ontology. It is what an element in the
> >ontology refers to (or it is the extension of what an element in the
> >ontology refers to).
> >
> > >I use "Class" because it is used by the RDF and OWL communities
(which
> > >are W3C standards), and I try to use the terms which are most
widely
> > >used.
> >
> >"Concept" is an ISO standard; but good sense will win through, in
the
> >end.
> >
> > > I believe this to be identical in meaning to "Collection" as
> > >used in OpenCyc, "Class" in SUMO, "Universal" in DOLCE and
"Property"
> > >in the Ontology Works system. I use it in the Ontolingua sense,
as an
> > >intensionally defined grouping distinct from 'Set' which refers to
an
> > >extensionally defined grouping. I am not intending to use it in
the
> > >set-theoretic sense.
> > >
> > >That term may have different usages in different communities (I
think
> > >ISO15926 has a slightly different usage, though I do not yet fully
> > >understand it).
> > >
> > >For our discussions, I will happily use any term on which we can
> >agree.
> > >
> > >As for Barry's list:
> > >
> > >[BS] >> There is no perfect solution here. The
> > >conceivably feasible alternatives (known to me) are:
> > >
> > >concept
> > >universal
> > >type
> > >class
> > >species
> > >kind
> > >category
> > >
> > >[PC] . . . you left out "Sort" and "Property" (the latter from
> >Ontology
> > >Works).
> >
> >I agree that 'sort' should be on the list. I do not think 'property'
> >fits, however. We have
> >
> >Fido instance_of dog
> >
> >'Fido' refers to an instance
> >
> >Q1. What does 'dog' refer to?
> >
> >The color of this book instance_of red.
> >
> >'The color of this book' refers to an instance
> >
> >Q2. What does 'red' refer to?
> >
> > >a universal
> > >a type
> > >a class
> > >a species
> > >a kind
> > >a category
> > >a sort
> >
> >are all reasonable answers to both Q1 and Q2. 'Concept' is a good
> >answer to none of them. 'Property' a good answer at best to Q2.
> >
> > >For our immediate purpose we only need to fix on the term we will
use
> > >to refer to those intensionally defined groupings called:
> > >
> > > Class in Ontolingua and Protege
> > > Class in RDF and OWL
> > > Class in SUMO
> > > Collection in OpenCyc
> > > Universal in DOLCE
> > > Property in Ontology Works' IODE system
> > > ---------------
> > >
> > > The vote is still open.
> >
> >I vote for
> >
> >type
> >universal
> >kind
> >sort
> >
> >in this order.
> >BS
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
> >To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> >http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
> >Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> >Community Wiki:
>
>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinati
n
> >gWG
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
> >To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> >http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
> >Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> >Community Wiki:
>
>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinati
ngWG
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.
> net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?
> SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (012)
|