> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >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?
> >
> > Sets do not have instances.
>
>MW: Then what please is the name of the relation you use to relate a
>set to one of its members? How does its nature differ from that between
>a type and one of its instances? (01)
membership (02)
1. the number 4 is a member of the set {4, the moon, Napoleon}
2. there is no corresponding type (03)
3. Harvey is a member of the set of rabbits
4. Harvey is also an instance of the type rabbit.
It is in virtue of 4. that 3. is true. (04)
We see that there are cases of set-membership where there is no
counterpart to 4. Hence set membership is at least a wider notion. (05)
Sets are abstract entities, with wonderful mathematical properties,
but they are not what, e.g., biologists study. (06)
> > Types have instances.
> > We represent these instances using various means, e.g. English words
> > ('red', 'bright red') or hexadecimal numbers, or what you will.
> > Sometimes our representations are more precise, sometimes less. They
> > may still all be correct (as it may be equally correct to say:
> > 'animal over there', or 'cat at fifty paces').
>
>MW: I think I have mostly grasped what you mean by a type, surprising
>as it has been to me. Just one last clarification here. I presume you
>agree there are some types whose membership does not change, i.e. your
>type and set have the same members, e.g. integers and real numbers. (07)
If integer is a type, then the set of its instances is indeed always
identical to the set of its instances. And ditto for 'real number'. (08)
>MW: Do you still insist that the type and the set are different objects
>in this case? (It would seem somewhat redundant to me to do so, but I
>suspect that you do insist). (09)
So much ontological nonsense has been created because people thought
crucial distinctions were redundant. (010)
>MW: If we are to find any commonality it seems to me we need to follow
>Chris Menzels approach where he was saying that class/type/sort/category
>is not extensionally defined unless you have the axioms to make it so.
>
>MW: So I suggest a structure as follows:
>
>1. Class/type-that-may-or-may-not-be-defined-extensionally.
>
>Some subtypes of this would be:
>
>2. class/type-defined-extensionally.
>
>3. class/type-defined-intensionally.
>
>Since this could include people with 374 hairs on their arm. A subtype
>of this that would be:
>
>4. Class/type/sort-defined-intensionally. (011)
This, again, is putting the definitional cart before the ontological
horse. There were billions of types trillions of years before there
were any definitions. Definitions are nice, if you can have them, but
types do not depend for their existence on definitions. (012)
The above, ontologically, is no better than a taxonomy along the lines of (013)
class Michael West defined
class Michael West defined before breakfast
class Michael West defined before breakfast during a lunar eclipse (014)
>This should at least allow us to identify the very different things we
>seem to be interested in. We can then start trying to understand the
>relationship between them. (015)
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >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?
> > >
> > >MW: This still seems somewhat simplistic for engineering purposes.
> > There is infinite complexity everywhere. I am sure your Oil ontology
> > can capture it all.
>
>MW: I find it is much more about not preventing it being captured. (016)
The nice thing about a good ontology is that you can always add new
types when the need for them is recognized.
BS (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
|