W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Mapping SKOS into BFO

From: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 00:23:32 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=riBx6Pfr7fTTG5qKGZMpZjh7rdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
I'm not sure if this is likely to be a simple affair - welding the
 nominalist or conceptualist  metaphysics of KOSs into the realism of
Barry's Favourite Ontology may lead to confusion

For some of the possible problems, see the recent debate between Gary
Merrill and Barry Smith & Werner Ceusters in "Applied
- ( Merrill 2010a. Smith and Ceusters 2010; Merill 2010b).

(all articles are open access)


Merrill, G.H. (2010a ). “Ontological realism: Methodology or
*Applied Ontology* 5.2,
pp. 79–108. issn: 1570-5838.
 — (2010b ). “Realism and reference ontologies: Considerations, reflections
and problems<http://iospress.metapress.com/content/21l17015v46687v0/fulltext.pdf>”.
In: *Applied *
*Ontology* 5.3, pp. 189–221. issn: 1570-5838.
Smith, B. and W. Ceusters (2010). “Ontological realism: A methodology for
coordinated evolution of scientific  <goog_1473745623>
In: Applied Ontology 5.3, pp. 139–188. issn: 1570-5838

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu>wrote:

> The Basic Formal Ontology is commonly used in biomedical semantics
> through OBO. I would like to propose a mapping of skos:Concept into
> BFO as a subclass of "generically dependent continuent". I believe
> this will help further the ongoing discussion surrounding definitions
> for the term "concept", and will also provide an ontological home for
> it in relation to non-conceptual ontologies. I chose "generically
> dependent continuent" for the following reasons:
> The definition of "generically dependent continuent" is: "Definition:
> A continuant [snap:Continuant] that is dependent on one or other
> independent continuant [snap:IndependentContinuant] bearers. For every
> instance of A requires some instance of (an independent continuant
> [snap:IndependentContinuant] type) B but which instance of B serves
> can change from time to time."
> This refers to entities that exist in relation to something, but it
> doesn't matter what, exactly, that something is. Ideas (and therefore
> concepts) have this property - an idea can exist in my head, I can
> write it down, someone else can read it, and in that process the idea
> is dependent on my brain, the media I write it down on, and then brain
> of the person who reads it.
> A concept is not an occurrent (definition: "An entity [bfo:Entity]
> that has temporal parts and that happens, unfolds or develops through
> time. Sometimes also called perdurants."). While a concept can have a
> lifetime in which it is imagined, changed, and forgotten, in BFO this
> is considered distinct from the entity itself.
> A concept is not an independent continuent (definition: A continuant
> [snap:Continuant] that is a bearer of quality [snap:Quality] and
> realizable entity [snap:RealizableEntity] entities, in which other
> entities inhere and which itself cannot inhere in anything.") These
> are things that exist in and of themselves, without any need for a
> substrate.
> A concept is not a specifically dependent continuent (definition: "A
> continuant [snap:Continuant] that inheres in or is borne by other
> entities. Every instance of A requires some specific instance of B
> which must always be the same.") Concepts do not need some specific
> instance for it to be borne by, but can exist all the same in any
> suitable substrate.
> That leaves generically dependent continuent. A concept needs to have
> some substrate to exist, but it doesn't have to be any one particular
> substrate.
> Additionally, in the Information Artifact Ontology, "information
> content entity" is a subclass of generically dependent continuent. An
> information content entity is "an entity that is generically dependent
> on some artifact and stands in relation of aboutness to some entity".
> Some concepts are about particular things (universal classes and
> properties, for instance), which would make them information content
> entities, and therefore generically dependent continuents.
> Thanks,
> Jim
> --
> Jim McCusker
> Programmer Analyst
> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
> Yale School of Medicine
> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
> PhD Student
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
> http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 04:24:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:14 UTC