All,
The approach to resolution Matthew is proposing below (So I suggest a
structure as follows:) is one we should probably adopt rather quickly when
there seems to be a conceptual divergence. If there looks like different
underlying assumptions they are different concepts until proven otherwise.
The will, at least, give us labels to work with and something to attach
defining axioms to as we sort out the real differences and the relationships
between the divergent concepts. (01)
I have a much better understanding of the "natural type" approach now and
can see it is something that should be a part of COSMO, as should the purely
intentional type, and perhaps others. (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of West, Matthew R
SIPC-DFD/321
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 4:15 AM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes (03)
Dear Barry, (04)
See below. (05)
Regards (06)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (07)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (08)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> Sent: 21 January 2006 22:05
> 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).
> >
> >MW: This looks a lot like a Bill of Materials to me.
>
> When biologists study the eating habbits of, say, bacteria, they do
> not first check the Bill of Materials printed by Bacteria Central
> Administration that morning. (09)
MW: And there was me thinking we were talking about ontology and not what
biologists look up. How silly.
>
>
> > >
> > > 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. (010)
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? (011)
> 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'). (012)
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. (013)
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). (014)
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. (015)
MW: So I suggest a structure as follows: (016)
1. Class/type-that-may-or-may-not-be-defined-extensionally. (017)
Some subtypes of this would be: (018)
2. class/type-defined-extensionally. (019)
3. class/type-defined-intensionally. (020)
Since this could include people with 374 hairs on their arm. A subtype
of this that would be: (021)
4. Class/type/sort-defined-intensionally. (022)
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. (023)
> > >
> > > 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. (024)
MW: I find it is much more about not preventing it being captured.
> 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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (027)
|