ontac-dev
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of sets

To: "'ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion'" <ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Cory Casanave" <cbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 07:16:45 -0500
Message-id: <001701c62984$ddedf820$0200a8c0@cbcpc>
MW,
In semantic core I actually came to a "provisional" conclusion that set is a
subtype of type and that the range of set operations was type. I can then
talk about all the hats in my closet and many of the typical type operations
are covered by the set operations.  I also have an enumerated set whereby
the membership is asserted. This is one of those conclusions that came based
on "this is how all the pieces fit" rather than deep theory - and it rather
surprised me.  I will be interested to see how it works out here.
I have NOT assumed all sets (or types) have static membership as that would
be an orthogonal restriction in the model I have.      (01)

-Cory
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 6:07 AM
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes
> 
> Dear Chuck,
> 
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > MW: Types on the other hand, are not necessarily expected
> > > to be the same if they have the same members.
> >
> >  Yes - all good aspects that I intend to borrow for my own evolving
> > definitions.  Thank you.
> >
> >  I might also interject that what I call Types and what I
> > call Classes, are
> > in themselves Sets.  Every Type is a Set, yet not every Set
> > is a Type -
> > which agrees with what Barry stated about Types being an
> > Extension of Sets.
> 
> MW: The problem saying that every type IS a set (Barry actually says
> every type HAS a set - at a point in time) is that as a type some may
> have changing membership, yet sets essentially have unchanging membership.
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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    (02)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (03)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>