Chris and Barry, (01)
I was following Church's definition of a function as rule
(see the excerpt in http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/alonzo.htm ).
I consider a type to be of the same nature as a function,
since one could consider a type to be a function from
entities to truth values. (02)
JS>> A _type_ t is a rule or specification for classifying entities,
>> concrete or abstract. Any entity that has the characteristics
>> specified by the type t is called an _instance_ of t. (03)
BS> Something wrong here, surely.
>
> This would mean that Fido is an instance of a rule for classifying
> entities. (04)
I admit that my definition is as loosely stated as Church's,
but I consider that at worst a venial sin, and it's certainly
no disgrace to be lumped into the same group with Alonzo C. (05)
CM> *semantic entities* or, "Thingies", in my preferred technical
> terminology... (06)
Since the term *semantic entity* threatens to get us hung up in
more endless discussion about the boundary between syntax and
semantics, I also like your term "thingy". (07)
To tidy up my loose terminology, I suggest either "thingy" or
the more pompous kind of thingy called an "abstract entity": (08)
A _type_ t is an abstract entity, which may be defined by a
rule that is used for classifying entities, concrete or abstract.
Any entity that has the characteristics specified by the rule
of the type t is called an _instance_ of t. (09)
BS> 'Concept' belongs at best to linguistics or psychology. (010)
I would agree with that. But as I said to Pat C., I have no objection
to using it as a possibly superfluous modifier of the word "type" in
an informal discussion, especially when the discussion is being used
to relate the types of an ontology to word senses in linguistics. (011)
BS> However, I think it wrong to coin a term 'relation type'. This
> is because most of the relations which interest us here, e.g. is_a
> (meaning: is subtype of), instance_of, part_of, etc., DO NOT HAVE
> INSTANCES. (012)
Actually, they do. If you consider the extension of a type to be
a set of instances, the extension of a relation is a set of n-tuples,
each of which may be called an instance of the relation. A common
word for an instance of a relation is "relationship". (013)
BS> I vote for
>
> type
> universal
> kind
> sort
>
> in this order. (014)
I also vote for "type" as the least objectionable of all the options.
The word "universal" can easily get us bogged down in over two
millennia of debate, the word "kind" is a good old-fashioned English
word that is best used in informal discussions, and the word "sort"
has acquired special technical senses in sorted and order-sorted logics. (015)
John Sowa (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|