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

Re: Why do you want to do that?

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:46:00 -0400
Message-Id: <D0A86D31-5416-462D-8193-9DAE6BB0C575@acm.org>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@PioneerCA.com>, SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>

Dick--

But you still haven't explained what the ambiguity is you were  
referring to.  This new example doesn't help me.  If you mean by  
"airplane car" a class of things that are both airplanes and cars, I  
don't see any ambiguity with it:  people have (and do) make things  
that are both airplanes and cars.

A basic issue you might address is how someone can make statements  
about a class if the class can't also be treated as an individual.

--Frank

On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:

>
> 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 Wednesday, 13 August 2008 14:46:49 GMT

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