Dear Cory, (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 Cory Casanave
> Sent: 30 January 2006 15:44
> To: 'ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> Re: MW: So we might reasonably conclude that there are three major
> categories (sorry types) of thing, types, relationships, individuals.
> If we were very lucky, we might even agree that these were mutually
> exclusive, but that may be pushing my luck.
>
> I am OK with "thing" as the thing that includes everything
> distinguishable
> from other things. (06)
MW: Me too. Good! (07)
> How would you then distinguish individual? (08)
MW: Things that don't have instances (still need to watch out for the
null set though which is excluded). (09)
> As for "individual" and "type" being disjoint, it depends on
> the semantics
> of the non-type things. I explicitly need to allow for
> meta-circularity,
> types of types, axioms about types, etc. (010)
MW: Me too, so Type is an instance of Type. (011)
> Even very grounded
> things like
> "part category" have features as well as instances, the direct
> representation of such a concept is an identifiable thing as
> well as a type
> that has instances. (012)
MW: All types are things anyay, so I don't see your problem. Some
terms are used in conversation to mean in one example a type, and
in another an individual, e.g. The activity of sewing vs the activity
of doing the shopping this afternoon. However, these are different
senses and the first refers to a type and the second to an individual. (013)
MW: Can you elaborate your example some more? (014)
> Of course, the same is true of "rabbit"
> as a species.
> (We do love our Rabbits holes).
>
> -Cory
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-dev-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:53 AM
> > To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> > Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes
> >
> > Dear Cory,
> >
> > See below
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> > Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> > Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >
> > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> > Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.shell.com
> > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> > > >
> > > > > Matthew,
> > > > >
> > > > > > MW: That sounds reasonable, but we still need something
> > > more general
> > > > > > that says "here are some things" in an abstract way.
> > > > >
> > > > > [cbc] That, to me, is type. We can attach intentional
> > > > > statements to it or
> > > > > an extension to it. It is then the instance and subtype
> > > > > relations that make
> > > > > "type" interesting and well defined.
> > > > > One way to define a type is to make rules, another way is
> > > to enumerate
> > > > > instances. In this sense "set" is a subtype of "type".
> > > >
> > > > MW: If that includes {my right ear, the moon, rabbit} then
> > > I would be
> > > > entirely happy. But that is not what I am hearing from others.
> > >
> > > [[CBC] ] Since this is the most general concept and it is the
> > > most general
> > > concept we are looking for - yes.
> >
> > MW: That would work for me then. But I think there are others to
> > be lined up behind that intent.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > MW: The similarity you see [in 3d and 4d] is because it is
> > > > > the same real
> > > > > world
> > > > > > phenomena that accounts are being given of. But one
> > > says physical
> > > > > > objects are extended in time and the other says
> they are not. So
> > > > > > the accounts are clearly not compatible. What I would
> > > expect is that
> > > > > > it is relatively easy to map between them though. So a
> > > state of a
> > > > > > 4D extent at a point in time can be mapped to a 3D
> object as it
> > > > > > passes through (is indexed at) that same point in time.
> > > > >
> > > > > [cbc] Yes, so, they are different aspects of the same
> > > > > individuals that can
> > > > > be mapped.
> > > >
> > > > MW: NO! They are different concepts (to use a dangerous
> > > word) of what
> > > > an individual is. Each would have all the aspects that
> are possible.
> > >
> > > [[CBC] ] Agree, we are saying the same thing. Different
> > > "aspects of" are
> > > the different concepts, of the same individual,
> represented by types.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Why are we having such trouble with this?
> > > > > Perhaps because we are trying to pick one aspect as dominant?
> > > >
> > > > MW: Probably. That at least is what I am trying to avoid.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > MW: That looks closer to how I would see things,
> but I suspect
> > > > > > you just get different arguments. (By the way it is
> safer to use
> > > > > > individual when you mean things existing in
> space-time, types
> > > > > > can be instances of other types).
> > > > >
> > > > > [cbc] As we can type conceptual entities and types are
> > > concepts in our
> > > > > world,
> > > >
> > > > MW: No. Types exist. We discover (or invent) them. Concepts
> > > are how we
> > > > externalise that discovery/invention.
> > > [[CBC] ] I don't want to go down this rabbit hole.
> >
> > MW: Me neither.
> >
> > > Could we
> > > say the thingie
> > > we are naming is the concept of a type?
> >
> > MW: Better still. There is this thing that we call "type".
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I would expect types to be individuals.
> > > >
> > > > MW: Why? They exist outside of space-time. Individuals are
> > > things that
> > > > exist inside space-time.
> > > [[CBC] ] These seem like unnecessary and troublesome
> > > restrictions about some
> > > "space-time" frame of reference - what I thought you were
> > > trying to avoid.
> > > The type concepts "form-674", "love", "asset",
> "obligation", "France",
> > > "ONTAC" or "rabbit", invented or natural have a life-cycle in
> > > time (but not
> > > necessarily space). You can make statements about it. We
> > > are talking about
> > > one now - it has an identity ("it" is an it). It has a name.
> > > It is an
> > > individual. It is "type". Anything you can distinguish from
> > > any other
> > > thing is an individual.
> >
> > MW: This is using individual the way I would use thing (absolutely
> > anything).
> >
> > MW: setting relations/relationships aside it is normally
> uncontroversial
> > to say that there are things that have instances/members, and things
> > that don't (ignoring the empty set for the moment). Rabbit
> is an example
> > of the former, I am an example of the latter. Since some things that
> > are instances can themselves have instances, it is relatively
> > commonplace to refer to things that don't have instances as
> individuals.
> >
> > MW: So we might reasonably conclude that there are three major
> > categories (sorry types) of thing, types, relationships,
> individuals.
> > If we were very lucky, we might even agree that these were mutually
> > exclusive, but that may be pushing my luck.
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|