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 22:01
> 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.
> >
> >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).
>
> So you need a theory of individuals, which allows them to preserve
> their identity over time, while gaining and losing parts. (06)
MW: I thought we all needed this. Or else how do you propose dealing
with something as ordinary as a car when you change a tyre or its
spark plugs. (07)
MW: You could of course follow the approach you have outlined above
and insist that there are no car-individuals, but only car-types.
However, this is so counter-intuitive I imagine you have some other
solution in mind that I await with interest.
>
>
> >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.
>
> The species rabbit, then, is for you the set of all the rabbits which
> ever existed, exist, or will exist. (08)
MW: Yes. (09)
> Does it include rabbit embryos and rabbit corpses? Or detached rabbit
> arms? (010)
MW: You get to choose. What are your answers to those questions? (011)
> Is there something which all its members share in common (a
> type, we might call it), in virtue of which it is such an interesting
> object for biologists' study? (012)
MW: Yes. There are some common characteristics of all the members of the
set which I can record against the set as a basis for recognising
members when you see them. (013)
> 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 (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|