[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:40:06 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGMEFPGOAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Matthew    (01)

A question(s):    (02)

In the entity relationship paradigm does the set of all entities form a
tree, in the most ideal case, with one root node?    (03)

I assume that it does, and that it is then completely what classical object
oriented programming looks for.    (04)

There is also a conceptual mapping to classical theory of types and to
theory of sets, as well as to classical theories of categorization.  John
knows about these things well.    (05)

I also assume that the relationships between entities sometimes are defined
in ways to allow multiple parents to a specific entity.  So this is not the
"ideal case" but reflects practical needs.    (06)

I assume that, like the RDF/OWL constructions, that entities can have
properties.  (OWL has an increasing number of other formal elements, and I
have become completely confused about - the language they use does not
correspond to language used in classical set theory - and I am not sure how
the terminology gets adopted.)    (07)

Does anyone know the list of OWL formal elements?    (08)

I also assume that in some ideal sense that all entity relationship trees
have instances populating the ends of the branches.    (09)

So the property of being "real", ie as being existent as a thing with
location and temporal extent is only attracted to those things that are
instances.    (010)

I also assume that all of this set and class theory is crisp, in the sense
of not being fuzzy (Zadeh) or rough (Pawlak). I also assume that
axiomatization is considered fixed, ie not as in quasi axiomatic theory
(Finn and Pospelov).    (011)

I am just trying to get the playing field down for the issue that your
posting regarding "Basic Formal Ontology".    (012)

My feeling is that some foundation is lacking in how the standards processes
move forward.  Getting this foundation might be a prerequisite to getting a
hub ontology in place    (013)

It should be clear that "Basic Formal Ontology" presents a view of the
world.  The judgment about it should be a metric on how useful this is to
non-computer scientists.    (014)

One nice property of the BFO set of relationships is that it is described
completely in the paper:
http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46    (015)

Is there a similar description of the set of relationships in ISO 15926?    (016)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (017)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>