Dear Barry, (01)
See below (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 20:10
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote
>
>
>
> >MW: From where I sit a class/set/type/category
> >(the longer the concatenation the quicker people will want
> to pick one
> >and the less they will care which) has a number of instances
> and a number
> >of axioms, and there is no need for two objects (e.g. class
> and type) any
> >more than a person needs to be two objects because it has
> arms and legs.
>
> A type has a number of instances which together form a class.
> A football team has a number of members which together form a set.
> The set can change, as members join and leave, but the football team
> remains identical.
> Thus the set and the team are not identical. (06)
MW: This does not compute for me. I see a team as an individual, whose
parts (members) may change over time. At any point in time you can identify a
(possibly different) class (with unchanging membership) that are the
members that are part of that team at that time (but I wouldn't generally
find these interesting). (07)
MW: It looks to me as if you are introducing unnecessary complexity. It
also seems to me that this example does not address my point.
>
>
> >MW: I accept of course that there is the trivial restriction class of
> >"instances of X" which can be derived from the instance_of
> relation, but
> >that is entirely redundant as far as I can see.
> >
> >MW: Please explain my error.
>
> See above. And generalize to, say, the species rabbit. (08)
MW: I see the set of all the rabbits for all time, the sets of all rabbits
for points or periods in time, and if you want, the aggregate of their
spatio-temporal extents (but these are not I think so interesting in this case).
All have unchanging membership/parts. (09)
> 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/OntologyTaxonomyCo
ordinatingWG (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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (011)
|