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

Re: Mapping SKOS into BFO

From: Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 00:56:30 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTind1OWsNPu6-06VNvkWQY6Lu2zJiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu> wrote:
> 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 Ontology" - ( Merrill
> 2010a. Smith and Ceusters 2010; Merill 2010b).
> (all articles are open access)

I'm familiar with many of these arguments, and my goal isn't to
provide some sort of mapping between mass-the-concept and
mass-the-quality. They are two different things. Related, sure, but
occupying different parts of the hierarchy. My point is simply that
concepts have a place in realist ontologies. If a person does not
subscribe to that sort of ontology, they are free to ignore that
placement. Nevertheless, concepts, in addition to how they are treated
in KOSs, are also particulars that exist in the real world (albeit
particulars that are dependent on some sort of substrate), and as
such, any given concept can have an assigned class from a realist
ontology. SKOS views concepts as individuals, which is right and
proper in my mind, and happens to align with the idea that the class
of things skos:Concept, being a thing in the real world (an idea) has
a place in a realist ontology.

Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 04:57:18 UTC

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