ontac-dev
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote

To: "ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion" <ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:21:14 -0000
Message-id: <A94B3B171A49A4448F0CEEB458AA661F02CE52B1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: 23 January 2006 09:37
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > So you need a theory of individuals, which allows them to preserve
> > > their identity over time, while gaining and losing parts.
> >
> >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.
> 
> The details are supplied in full in:
> 
> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/SNAP_SPAN.pdf
> 
> Basically, all instance-level x part_of y 
> assertions for 3D objects are indexed by times.
> This is not necessary for 4D objects, since 
> processes do not gain and lose parts over time.    (06)

MW: It is always nice to be reminded of the extra work 3 Dimensionalists
have to do to deal with change.    (07)

MW: But if you can cope with changing parts, what lead you to consider
that a team was a type rather than an individual (an organisation of
some sort I would have said)?    (08)

MW: And of course I'm sill looking for an answer to the question of
why you need types whose members change over time.    (09)

> > >
> > > >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.
> >
> >MW: Yes.
> >
> > > Does it include rabbit embryos and rabbit corpses? Or 
> detached rabbit
> > > arms?
> >
> >MW: You get to choose. What are your answers to those questions?
> 
> Touché
> 
> 
> > > 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?
> >
> >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.
> 
> So when you write:
> 
> 'Harvey has the characteristics common to all and only the rabbits'
> 
> then I write
> 
> 'Harvey instance_of rabbit'    (010)

MW: You tell me your description of a rabbit and I'll happily play 
the same trick on you.    (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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>