Barry, (01)
My comments below. (02)
I realize that Pat has already stated that the COSMO has working
descriptions for these terms and ideas, however I believe that further
definition is possible, and may be required. I think that the recent
round-the-block conversation about "type" shows that. (03)
Chuck (04)
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 (05)
ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/27/2006 02:34:17 PM: (06)
> >
> >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.
>
> This would mean that there were no types before there were agreements
> by concept-using animals.
> Thus the type bacteria popped into existence one day, as a result of
> some meeting of biologists.
> Not good. (07)
CT: I had considered this, as some types definitely seem to be the natural
order of things. However, on reflection, I based my definition on the
suggested ordering of the domain involved, because I wanted my definition
to also apply to domain ontologies that are primarily involved with
man-made "things" (such as an ontology describing military operations,
etc). Secondarily to my wanting to accommodate disparate domain
ontologies, I also see that we are dealing with an ontology - meaning that
it only exists within the minds of concept-using animals. The things that
the ontology addresses and describes may have been in existence before
hand, but the ontology itself was not. (08)
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Again, types existed long before there were people thinking this way or
that.\
> The other definitions (of 'class' and 'set') have the problem that
> they are not formally specified, and they presuppose quite complex
> notions such as 'purpose'. Moreover, 'set' should probably have a
> definition which relies on its standard use in set theory. (09)
CT: I agree with you entirely here, my "definitions" as such for class and
set are extremely loose, I just wanted to differentiate certain categories
from types that I believe are necessary, but that are not (in themselves)
what are thought of as type-entities. (010)
Chuck (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)
|