> >
> > > MW: That sounds reasonable, but we still need something more general
> > > that says "here are some things" in an abstract way. (01)
how about: "here are some things" (02)
or better still: "here are some entities"
> >
> > [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. (03)
If set is a subtype of type, and (04)
{my right ear, the moon, rabbit} is a set (05)
then (06)
{my right ear, the moon, rabbit} is a type. (07)
Someone should teach Matthew, one day, about what is called a
reductio ad absurdum argument.
BS (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|