W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Why do you want to do that?

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:16:59 -0700
Message-ID: <B1B4716376BD4525980435EE7AAB69EA@rhm8200>
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Adam Pease" <adampease@earthlink.net>, "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "KR-language" <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>

Hi Frank

I hear you, but I don't think "green car" captures the nature of the 
ambiguity.
It's more like an "airplane car".

Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>; "Adam Pease" <adampease@earthlink.net>; 
"Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "KR-language" 
<KR-language@YahooGroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?


> Dick--
>
> What's the ambiguity that's introduced?  It seems to me that when I  treat 
> something as both an individual and a class, in a logical  language that 
> allows it, it's perfectly unambiguous that you're doing  that.  If I have 
> a green car, something that's both a car and a green  thing, there's no 
> "ambiguity" as to whether it's a car or a green  thing;  it's just both. 
> In these examples from the OWL Guide  (assuming you choose to use OWL Full 
> as indicated), there isn't any  ambiguity either;  something is simply 
> both an individual and a class.
>
> --Frank
>
> On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Frank
>> OK, I have been convinced there's a reason why you would want to do 
>> that.
>> The downside is that you introduce another ambiguity, which must be 
>> resolved
>> by context.
>> Humans are pretty good at doing that.
>> One aim of mKR is to make them even better at doing that.
>>
>> Dick McCullough
>> Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
>> mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
>> knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
>> knowledge haspart proposition list;
>> http://mKRmKE.org/
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
>> To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
>> Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>; "Adam Pease" <adampease@earthlink.net
>> >; "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "KR-language" 
>> ><KR-language@YahooGroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:48 AM
>> Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>>>
>>>> I finally got a few minutes to read OWL Guide 3.1.3
>>>> I read that section as supporting my position.  The word  "context"  is 
>>>> mentioned
>>>> several times, with the implication that X ismem IndividualSet;  in 
>>>> one context,
>>>> and X ismem ClassSet; in a different context.
>>>
>>> Dick--
>>>
>>> I originally cited section 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide to answer a  question 
>>> you posed in your original message:  why someone might  want an 
>>> individual to also be a class.  Specifically:
>>>
>>> "The wine ontology as it currently exists would require the ability  to 
>>> treat classes as instances in order to support such an  interpretation. 
>>> Note that OWL Full permits such expressivity,  allowing us to treat an 
>>> instance of a wine variety simultaneously  as a class whose instances 
>>> are bottles of wine."
>>>
>>> and also
>>>
>>> "Adding that the wine produced in the year 2000 is considered a 
>>> vintage poses a challenge, because we don't have the ability to 
>>> represent a subset of a given wine individual. This vintage is not  a 
>>> new variety of wine, it is a special subset of the wine - that 
>>> produced in the year 2000. An option would be to use OWL Full and 
>>> treat the wine instances as classes with subclasses (subsets)  denoting 
>>> vintages. "
>>>
>>> Other examples (outside the OWL Guide) of why it can be useful to 
>>> treat an individual as a class (or vice-versa) can also be cited. 
>>> Perhaps you could clarify your position you think OWL Guide 3.1.3 
>>> supports?  It doesn't seem to support a position (if that's your 
>>> position) that no one would want to do that.
>>>
>>> --Frank
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. X  type  Y;  X  subClassOf  Z;
>>>>>> Another neat property: X is an individual and a class.
>>>>>> Now I can ... What?  I don't know.
>>>>>> Why do you want to do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> How about the example in Section 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Frank
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 20:28:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:24 GMT