Dear Pat, (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 Cassidy, Patrick
> J.
> Sent: 27 January 2006 18:03
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: RE: Categorization (was RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of
> attributes)
>
>
> Chuck -
> We have already established usages within the COSMO ontology for
> those three terms:
>
> Type - the main intensional grouping for entities in the ontology -
> see the discussion and vote. The formalization should be available
> soon. (06)
MW: I note that this is more general than Barry seems to be looking for. (07)
> Class - not used in the COSMO, reserved for translations of the
> COSMO to OWL and other ontologies that use 'Class' in the same sense
> that we use 'Type'. In informal discussion it could be
> considered as a
> synonym of 'Type'.
> Set - used in the mathematical sense, by OpenCyc, SUMO, and DOLCE -
> and in the present COSMO, accepting that intended meaning. (08)
MW: There is quite a lot to do here too. By set do you just mean anything
defined by its extension (e.g. non-well-founded sets)? Or do you mean the
stricter sets of standard set theory? We will I think need both. (09)
MW: If we are having both of these, we presumably also need a supertype. How
about Universal?
>
> Of course, these could be used informally as you suggest,
> but I think
> it would be best not to vary our usage, even in informal discussion
> within the ONTACWG. It may be hard to avoid the use of "set" in some
> sense other than the mathematical, but it might be worth trying. I
> would use "grouping" myself, just to avoid confusing conflict with
> established uses of other terms referring to multiple entities
> considered as a whole.
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MITRE Corporation
> 260 Industrial Way
> Eatontown, NJ 07724
> Mail Stop: MNJE
> Phone: 732-578-6340
> Cell: 908-565-4053
> Fax: 732-578-6012
> Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles D
> Turnitsa
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:22 AM
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: Categorization (was RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of
> attributes)
>
> Not sure how well this will be received, and the idea is not 100%
> mature,
> but I've been playing with (what appears to be) a useful set of
> definitions
> for type, class and set.
>
> Type - a categorization of entities (both objects and process), where
> similar instances are grouped together based on some common
> (agreed to)
> organizing concept agreed to by the users of the domain. A simplistic
> example might be - In the domain of animals there is a type known as
> "Mammal", all of the instances of that type share the same properties
> that
> conversants in the domain think of as being definitional of Mammals.
>
> Class - a categorization of entities (objects and process, types and
> instances) that are grouped together to serve some semantic or
> grammatical
> purpose. In a grammar, of course, you have a number of non-terminal
> symbols that represent "things" from your language that serve a useful
> role
> in the grammar (nouns, verbs, pronouns) in different situations. This
> is
> what I'm thinking of here. Classes are important for establishing
> rulesets
> (such as grammars) on the contents of your ontology. For instance,
> "the
> class of all objects, types and instances, that can be related to
> location
> X at time Y".
>
> Sets - any other ad hoc categorization that a conversant within the
> domain
> of the ontology wishes to make. For instance, the set of all animals
> that
> a young girl thinks are cute. Or the set of all governmental agencies
> that
> might be interested in funding Ontology research. : )
>
> By my definition, the categorization that I refer to as Type belongs
> within
> a formal ontology. The categorization that I refer to as
> Class is used
> by
> the rules of discourse that a conversant in the ontology's
> domain might
> use. And the categorization that I refer to as set are just
> convenient
> methods of grouping things together as the conversant sees fit.
>
> Chuck
>
> Charles Turnitsa
> Lab Manager/Project Scientist
> Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
> Old Dominion University Research Foundation
> 7000 College Drive
> Suffolk, Virginia 23435
> (757) 638-6315 (voice)
> (757) 686-6214 (fax)
> cturnits@xxxxxxx
>
>
> ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/27/2006 04:25:05 AM:
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Leaving aside administrative domains (e.g. tax collection),
> types,
> > > > like instances, are discovered. They are out there in reality.
> They
> > > > form the subject-matter of scientific inquiry.
> > >
> > >MW: Well I would say that there is an abundance of sets out there
> and
> > >some of them have greater significance than others.
> >
> > Interesting to find out why some have greater significance than
> others
> ...
> >
> >
> > >BS> Quine used to talk about desert landscapes. You, it seems, are
> pining
> > > > for desert landscapes from which all traces of the biological
> have
> > > > been eliminated (even, I suppose, the oil and gas underneath).
> > >
> > >MW: Quite the reverse, I am saying there is every possible set you
> can
> > >imagine (and probably more) and that you are just identifying some
> as
> > >useful for some purpose.
> >
> > Analogously there is every possible combination of human bodily
> > parts; there is Matthew's nose plus John's legs plus Patrick's feet
> > (etc.); Patrick's nose plus Leo's legs plus Chris's feet (etc.);
> > Matthew's nose plus Matthew's legs plus Matthew's feet (etc.). And
> > all have equal civil rights, but you are just identifying some as
> > useful for some purpose.
> >
> > This is silly.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >MW: My problem now is that I understand that you want types to
> be
> > > > >restricted to things like rabbits, not "people with 376
> > > > hairs on their
> > > > >arms" or "4, the moon, and me". Now, whilst I am sympathetic
> > > > >to the idea of natural kinds, it seems to me that these
> > > > three examples
> > > > >actually sit in a spectrum and there is no clear divide between
> them
> > > > >(though these three being prototypical can be easily
> distinguished).
> > > >
> > > > There are many terms for which we have clear examples
> of entities
> > > > which fall under them, clear examples of entities which do not
> fall
> > > > under them, and then a penumbra of problematic cases in between.
> > > > Responses to this problem for 'type' might be:
> > > >
> > > > 1. it is hard work to find out which types exist (this work is
> called
> > > > 'science') (BS)
> > > > 2. we should refrain from formulating axioms about what
> is a type
> (JS)
> > > > 3. 'type' is redundant; we should talk of sets instead, keeping
> our
> > > > heads under the desert sand to avoid all sight e.g. of
> > > > anything biological (MW)
> > >
> > >MW: Well as usual you indulge in gross misrepresentation when all
> else
> > >fails.
> > >
> > >MW: In a 4D world I am happy to concede that there will be a set of
> sets
> > >that corresponds to what you would refer to as types. (With an
> abundance
> > >of sets of course its there). In your 3D world you seem to need
> these
> > >things to be able to have varying membership over time. That is
> simply
> > >a problem I don't have.
> >
> > Indeed. I take it that you when were doing arithmetic tests in
> > school, your answer would always have the form: "There is an
> > abundance of numbers out there, one of which is the correction
> > solution to this problem."
> > 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/OntologyTaxonomyC
oordinati
ngWG
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG (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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|