Dear Barry, (01)
A question below, and a couple of comments. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (04)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> Sent: 21 January 2006 09:25
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes
>
>
>
> The bio-ontologists currently developing the phenotype and other
> ontologies have addressed this question in detail. Their earlier
> attempts led to what I propose calling the 'Peanut Butter Sandwich'
> problem. If you have Attributes (Color) and Values (Red), then for
> some attributes (e.g. Height) you will infinitely many values, and
> for other attributes (e.g. Eats) you will have uncontrollably many
> made-up values (e.g. Peanut Butter Sandwich with McDonald's Chicken
> Fajita Sauce and a Pickle). (06)
MW: This looks a lot like a Bill of Materials to me.
>
> The solution they are working on is to drop the whole notion of
> Values. Rather, there are determinable attributes (Color) and
> determinate attributes (Red). Attributes are not relations between
> bearers and values. Rather, every single attribute instance, for
> instance the color of Rudolf's nose, instantiates a series of
> attribute types at greater and lesser levels of granularity. (07)
MW: Do you mean here that (your) redness of Rudolphs nose is an instance
of a set of varying and usually widening spectrum ranges? i.e. you are
dealing with the issue of accuracy/precision?
>
> This still leaves open the problem of Height. Here the solution is
> along the lines of accepting Height as a determinable attribute, with
>
> Height-of-2-Meters
> Height-of-1.9-Meters
>
> etc.
>
> as determinates. In any given domain of biological inquiry, there is
> a finite number of such relevant determinates. (08)
MW: Are there not an infinite number of heights between Height-of-1.9-Meters
and Height-of-1.9-Meters? Or are you saying that we are only interested in
the values at 1mm distances between these? (09)
MW: This still seems somewhat simplistic for engineering purposes. (010)
> BS
>
> At 03:30 AM 1/21/2006, you wrote:
> >COSMO-WG:
> > To follow Leo's suggestion:
> >
> > One technical issue we need to resolve immediately is the
> >representation of attribute types and attribute values (Color ->
> >RedColor; Length -> 34 cm; Apprehensiveness -> Terrified), because
> >these differ among the different starting ontologies. In fact, they
> >differ between OpenCyc 0.7 and OpenCyc 0.9. They also differ and
> >present problems in implementation, when function terms are
> used as the
> >representation for measurement values. Each of the
> representations is
> >coherent, we just have to choose, and there are several
> issue involved
> >in choosing.
> >
> > Anyone want to get into this? Send me a note, and we will form a
> >CosmoTaskTeam on the issue. If it goes over 10 discussants,
> perhaps it
> >should stay on the dev list.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> >
> >Patrick Cassidy
> >MITRE Corporation
> >260 Industrial Way
> >Eatontown, NJ 07724
> >Mail Stop: MNJE
> >Phone: 732-578-6340
> >Cell: 908-565-4053
> >Fax: 732-578-6012
> >Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
> >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:41 PM
> >To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion; Chris Menzel
> >Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote
> >
> >All,
> >
> >Personally, I think a better methodology for these problematic
> >terminology aspects is to choose the disjunction:
> >
> >Class OR Type
> >
> >And move on.
> >
> >Here's a more general suggestion:
> >
> >Have small teams of perhaps 3-5 people be designated to address
> >Problem, where Problem is a variable that ranges over the problematic
> >issues we try to determine or at least list as a group (so at a
> >meta-level). These small teams will go away and analyze the Problem,
> >and report back with a Strawman Recommendation. We NEED to make
> >progress and all this very interesting thrashing won't get
> us anywhere.
> >
> >
> >Here's some preliminary suggestions (in no particular order, because
> >some depend on others, and are necessarily incomplete):
> >
> >1) Universal/Generic characterization: Class OR Type (or if
> you are not
> >happy with that: Extensional vs. Intensional)
> >2) PartOf characterization; Constitution characterization.
> >3) Properties, Relations, Attributes, Tropes, etc.
> >4) 3D vs. 4D or both
> >5) Entity vs. Process (state, event, activity, action, etc.)
> >Time/change stuff.
> >6) Necessary and sufficient characterization of all of the above
> >7) Your favorite other stuff
> >...
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________
> >Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
> >lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
> >Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
> >Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:18 PM
> >To: 'Chris Menzel'; 'ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion'
> >Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote
> >
> >Ok, logical gurus, help me out here.
> >The asserted "difference", between type and class is
> extensional. The
> >statements below say that if the instances satisfying the
> types are the
> >same
> >then types are the same.
> >Another statement would be if the instances satisfying the types must
> >be the
> >same the types must be the same.
> >The <are> and <must be> are very important.
> >
> >The first statement would only work for predicates that assume a very
> >closed
> >and very static world. E.G. the type of people on this list and the
> >type of
> >people with 874 hairs on their left arm are the same so these types
> >must be
> >the same - a very bad inference, particularly after I pluck
> a hair. It
> >assumes global knowledge and a static world. While I have no problem
> >that
> >predicates or even logics may choose to make those assumptions, it
> >should
> >not be part of the definition of type (or class).
> >If, on the other hand there is a logical necessity for the extensions
> >to be
> >the same, the class and type concepts are the same - this works and I
> >don't
> >see the issue. This also works in OWL. This is what I thought the
> >concept
> >of extensional classes entailed - but I am still learning.
> >As Chris says, you can ADD those assumptions to an ontology
> or context
> >without constraining core concepts like type/class/isKindOf.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Menzel
> >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:33 PM
> >To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> >Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote
> >
> >On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 06:27:49PM +0200, Christopher Spottiswoode
> >wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> >Hello, Christopher, it's been a while.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >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:
> >
> >(forall (C1 C2)
> > (if (and (Class C1)
> > (Class C2)
> > (forall (x)
> > (iff (instanceOf x C1)
> > (instanceOf x C2))))
> > (= C1 C2)))
> >
> >Add that axiom to your ontology, you get extensional
> classes. Leave it
> >out, you don't. Simple, eh? :-) What *is* the controversy here?
> >
> > > 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"!
> >
> >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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >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?
> >
> > > I would strongly urge us, however, not to be so influenced by such
> > > perhaps confusing formal uses:
> >
> >It is the informal uses that are confused. We have axioms to prevent
> >that sort of confusion.
> >
> >-chris
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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/OntologyTaxonomyC
oordinatin
>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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
>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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
>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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|