ontac-dev
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes

To: "ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion" <ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:55:38 -0000
Message-id: <A94B3B171A49A4448F0CEEB458AA661F02CE55A9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Charles,    (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)


> I agree with Barry, although I may be wrong.  :-)  I believe 
> that there is
> a big difference between Types and Sets.    (06)

MW: I agree there is a big difference between what you understand
as types and sets and what Pat has defined a type to be for
COSMO. Noone needs to be wrong here.
> 
> Types are suggested by the inherent categorization of the 
> ontology (whether
> that is natural order, in the case of biological domains, or 
> based on form
> or function in man-made domains, or whatever - it is some 
> sort of ordering
> suggested by the domain the ontology seeks to represent).    (07)

MW: A perfectly valid and ordinary sense to have for type,
its just that what has been defined is somewhat broader.
> 
> Sets, on the other hand, are ad hoc collections of things.      (08)

MW: Not necessarily. The set of integers is highly ordered.    (09)

> A formal
> definition (suggested by set theory) might be "any collection 
> of distinct
> things thought of as a whole".  It may be based on defining 
> rules , or it
> may be completely arbitrary.  It may assist the user of the 
> an ontology,
> but I don't see it as being part of an ontology's 
> categorization of its
> entities.    (010)

MW: The key distinction I would tend to make is that a set
has extensionality as the basis for identity. That is, if two
sets have the same members, then they are the same set.    (011)

MW: Types on the other hand, are not necessarily expected
to be the same if they have the same members.    (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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>