You have a tendency to make assumptions too hastily. (01)
There are types. These types get instantiated in different times and
places; instantiation involves a process in time, e.g. of stamping a
body of material with a mould, of fusion of sperm and egg, ... (02)
There are sets. These sets have members. Indeed they are defined by
their members. Timelessly. (03)
BS (04)
At 04:54 AM 2/7/2006, you wrote:
>Dear Barry,
>
>Sorry, but that is still about what can be a member/instance of one
>or the other, not what membership itself is. So I'll assume that there
>is no difference.
>
>Regards
>
>Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> > Sent: 07 February 2006 00:59
> > To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> > Subject: RE: Categorization (was RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of
> > attributes)
> >
> >
> >
> > You can include items on a list. Any items you like. The
> > set-membership relation is like the relation between an item on a
> > list and the list.
> >
> > To stand in the instance relation to a type, in contrast, you need to
> > be of that type and that means that you have to be a certain way: you
> > have to have the right sort of DNA, or be created on the basis of the
> > right sort of plan using the right sort of machine, and so forth.
> >
> > BS
> >
> > At 04:33 AM 2/6/2006, you wrote:
> > >Dear Barry,
> > >
> > >This does not answer my question, which is not about the difference
> > >between a set and a type, but between the difference in nature of the
> > >membership/instance of relationship.
> > >
> > >So please what is different in the nature of these relationships (not
> > >thing things they bring things into relationship too)?
> > >
> > >
> > >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/
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> > > > Sent: 04 February 2006 13:41
> > > > To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> > > > Subject: RE: Categorization (was RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of
> > > > attributes)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >MW: Noone has yet been able to explain the difference (or
> > > > even offer an
> > > > >explanation) though more than one has asserted a difference.
> > > > I am simply
> > > > >seeking enlightenment.
> > > >
> > > > Sets are mathematical objects; the set-membership relation is an
> > > > abstract relation, which obtains independently of time and change.
> > > > Sets can be defined arbitrarily, as in the {the moon,
> > Matthew West,
> > > > redness, 27} case. Sets are subject to arbitrary iterations,
> > > > combinations and intersections, ad nauseam, as in the
> > > >
> > > > {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Matthew West}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
> > > >
> > > > case. Which sets exist is a matter of mathematics and of
> > > > arbitrary definition.
> > > >
> > > > Types are entities (something like invariant patterns,
> > commonalities,
> > > > kinds) in reality. Which types exist changes from epoch to epoch
> > > > (Darwin tells us) and even from year to year (as new varities of
> > > > potato chip are invented). Which types exist is a matter of
> > > > observation and scientific exeriment. Types are not subject to
> > > > arbitrary iterations, combinations and intersections. There is no
> > > > type 'rabbit or steering wheel'.
> > > >
> > > > BS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > 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/OntologyTaxonomyC
>oordinatingWG
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|