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

["Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > 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.
>
>MW: It is always nice to be reminded of the extra work 3 Dimensionalists
>have to do to deal with change.    (01)

Indeed. Getting things right often involves hard work.    (02)

>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)?    (03)

I did not say that a football team was a type. I drew an analogy: 
just as teams can gain and lose players, so types can gain and lose instances.    (04)

>MW: And of course I'm sill looking for an answer to the question of
>why you need types whose members change over time.    (05)

Ever heard of Charles Darwin?
BS     (06)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (07)