W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2002

Re: [Fwd: SIG2 Amsterdam meeting - summary]

From: GUIDO VETERE <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:25:30 +0100
To: Nicola Guarino <Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it>
Cc: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, Mike Dean <mdean@daml.org>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3BDBA1A4.A881D64A-ONC1256B45.00311AAF@italy.ibm.com>

Hi Nicola,
you wrote:

>The reason why locations are not parts of objects is due to the very
>nature of objects and locations, not to the specificity of the part
>relation. The part relation is general, various entities behave very
>differently with respect to it, that's why there are various kinds of
>entities, but just one kind of (general) part...

>>Are we sure that, when we say <'hour' part of 'day'> and
>><'wheel' part of 'car'> we are using the same 'part' relation ?


I have a deep interest in the metaphysical assumption I see behind your
opinion (monism). Of course, it is as a specific position among many
others. For sure, monism is not the metaphysics position closest to the
'common sense'. Many authors (e.g. Achille Varzi, "Parole, Oggetti,
Eventi", 2001 ) recognize that natural language does not witness in favour
of the reduction of all entities to time-spatial events. In fact, objects
and events are reflected into different syntactic categories. Now, I think
that we should be as close to the common sense as possible, "salva

> ...there is no need to introduce a relation
>as primitive if it can be axiomatized. However, you need a suitable
>expressivity for axiomatizing it (for instance, to express the
>supplementation axiom).

On this, I see that there is a general agreement. Personally, I think that
the language should allow a sort of 'rigid denotation' for 'standard
axioms' such as those realated to mereology. I mean: the possibility to
refer them with simple identifiers rather than full specified logic
expressions. Most of the semantic web application wouldn't be able to
evaluate arbitrary logic expressions anyway.

>>Finally, I insist on the need of introducing 'type' vs. 'role' as
>>for class declarations. This distinction (that I learned from your works)
>>woud be crucial for for many practical reasons. Have you any comment on
>>that ?

>Of course we need these things. Type vs. role is certainly a very
>important distinction for an ontology language.

Fine. We should work on this in the future. Is there room for a proposal in
this direction ?

Guido Vetere
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 12:24:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:04 UTC