Dear Paul, (01)
See responses below. (02)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul S Prueitt
> Sent: 24 November 2005 18:40
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO
>
>
> Matthew
>
> A question(s):
>
> In the entity relationship paradigm does the set of all
> entities form a
> tree, in the most ideal case, with one root node? (03)
MW: It doesn't have to (remember entity relationship has its roots
in representing relational tables, where subtype/supertype is not
even entertained). However, the conventions we follow (largely
expounded in "Developing High Quality Data Models") (04)
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/princ03.pdf (05)
mean that ISO 15926 does do this. (06)
>
> I assume that it does, and that it is then completely what
> classical object
> oriented programming looks for.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. (07)
MW: We have have that having multiple supertypes is quite common in principle,
though our style is to allow instances to be members of multiple entity types
rather than to make the subtypes explicit. This causes no problem as long as
this has an ontological foundation, rather than what is often found in the
programming world where it is used to conveniently "inherit" some code without
regard for the side effects.
>
> 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.) (08)
MW: ISO 15926 has been translated into OWL experimentally. I do not know OWL
well enough to be specific, but there was a problem that arose from something
around properties meaning that they could not be referenced, i.e. properties
could not have properties. ISO 15926 has no such restriction.
>
> Does anyone know the list of OWL formal elements?
>
> I also assume that in some ideal sense that all entity
> relationship trees
> have instances populating the ends of the branches. (09)
MW: Entity types have instances.
>
> 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)
MW: Instances of entity types may be either individuals (exist in space-time)
or abstract (do not exist in space-time, e.g. classes)
>
> 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)
MW: We formally choose to use non-well founded set theory (traditional set
theory is more constrained). A 4D approach means that we do not have to
deal with membership changing over time (but we still have to deal with
incomplete knowledge of the membership of a set).
>
> I am just trying to get the playing field down for the issue that your
> posting regarding "Basic Formal Ontology".
>
> 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 (012)
MW: This has nothing to do with standards processes as such, just about
the differences between different formalisms for expressing ontologies
and different choices of ontological foundation.
>
>
>
> ***
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> Is there a similar description of the set of relationships in
> ISO 15926? (013)
MW: It is of course available in ISO 15926-2, which you can get from
your local national standards body, or from ISO itself. All the definitions
are also present in the web version of the model at: (014)
http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html (015)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCo
ordinatingWG (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (017)
|