On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 06:27:49PM +0200, Christopher Spottiswoode wrote:
> ... (01)
Hello, Christopher, it's been a while. (02)
> Pat, my own vote goes strongly to "type" (if I may emerge albeit
> perhaps incongruously from my lurking state on this list).
> Im my own work, which I hope to release to this list and the widest
> user community at a more appropriate time, I have for many years
> consistently and insistently used "type" to denote the intensional
> sense. "Class", it seems to me (as to John Sowa), invites confusion
> with the extensional sense. (03)
I continue to be utterly flummoxed by this argument. Do we, or do we
not, believe ontologies can avert exactly these sorts of confusions?
If not, just what do we think we are doing? Looky here: (04)
(forall (C1 C2)
(if (and (Class C1)
(Class C2)
(forall (x)
(iff (instanceOf x C1)
(instanceOf x C2))))
(= C1 C2))) (05)
Add that axiom to your ontology, you get extensional classes. Leave it
out, you don't. Simple, eh? :-) What *is* the controversy here? (06)
> Having said that, I would however agree with Cory that we should try
> to conform as far as possible with what seems like colloquial use.
> But I think that that rather argues in favour of "type", as it is (to
> me at least...) more colloquially intensional than "class"! (07)
Well, at the risk of furthering the impression that this red herring of
an argument is to the point :-) , I respectfully disagree. Indeed, I
can't even think of a colloquial use of the term "class" that is
extensional. Not even "set" is extensional in colloquial usage. (08)
> I mention that because both Chris Menzel and Leo Obrst have warned us
> against using "type" because of all the uses of that word in various
> formal systems. (09)
That skews my point badly. It is not simply the fact that "class" is
the term of choice in the formal system OWL that we should use it; it is
the fact that it is in OWL AND the fact that OWL and its kin are the
primary W3C languages for publishing ontologies on the web. We're
swimming unnecessarily, indeed perversely, upstream if we choose
otherwise. Seems to me that the only thing that could justify the
choice of "type" would some definite semantic incompatibility between
the desired ONTAC notion and the W3C notion of class. But there isn't.
So if we go with "type", we force EVERY user of OWL out there who wants
to interact with an ONTAC-based ontology needlessly to worry about
translating every occurrence of "type" into "class". Similarly for
every user of any ONTAC-based ontology. Isn't the point here to
*enhance* interoperability? Why throw up this completely unnecessary
stumblingblock, folks? (010)
> I would strongly urge us, however, not to be so influenced by such
> perhaps confusing formal uses: (011)
It is the informal uses that are confused. We have axioms to prevent
that sort of confusion. (012)
-chris (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|