W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > December 2003

RE: erratum ... RE: allValuesFrom and rdfs:domain

From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:13:43 -0800
To: 'Bernard Vatant' <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "'Www-Rdf-Logic@W3. Org'" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-id: <0HQ600BVGMQXUV@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>

Bernard,

! Yes, of course - supposing I have something precise in mind - which is not
! the case, actually. My mind is sort of fuzzy, that's why I need some sort
! of external representation ... 

External representation of what? :-)
Seams that you are looking for some sort of fuzzy Ontology. 
The funny thing is that... I do not know what it means :-)
In any case, it is always a pleasure chatting with you.

--Nikita



! -----Original Message-----
! From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
! Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:27 AM
! To: Nikita Ogievetsky; 'Www-Rdf-Logic@W3. Org'
! Subject: RE: erratum ... RE: allValuesFrom and rdfs:domain
! 
! 
! Nikita
! 
! > ! There are so many possible definitions for a blue thing. Yours would
! be
! > ! good for Klein's "Monochrom Blue". Sorry, I don't buy those.
! >
! > Sorry, I was not selling anything, just tried to help.
! 
! Thanks :))
! 
! > Knowing just an id of "BlueThing" was not sufficient enough to
! > understand what you mean.
! 
! Well, "I" don't mean anything. I've no definitive idea of what a Blue
! Thing
! can be, or even if the concept of a Blue Thing is relevant at all. You
! know
! my complete agnosticism about the real world, since we had long
! discussions
! about it. I was just putting on the table various possible formal
! definitions, all of them sensible, and trying to figure the entailments.
! 
! > So I gave you a suggestion that you
! > can modify as you wish to fit definition of "BlueThing" that you have in
! mind.
! 
! Yes, of course - supposing I have something precise in mind - which is not
! the case, actually. My mind is sort of fuzzy, that's why I need some sort
! of external representation ...
! 
! > Note though that "someValuesFrom" assumes
! > at least on value. So "InvisibleThing" is not included.
! 
! Sure. If you have at least one "color" value you are visible - assuming
! the
! given definition of the domain of "color" being VisibleThing, of course.
! 
! > (Unless you start complaining that you meant invisible a la Magritte
! "The
! > Invisible World"
! > http://www.the-artfile.com/uk/artists/magritte/invisibleworld.htm
! > which is actually quite blue according to your latter definition of
! > "BlueThing")
! 
! I sure would buy that one, if I could afford it.
! 
! > Consider a fading "BlueThing" eventually it becomes invisible. But at
! any
! > moment it is still blue. So there is nothing wrong with an
! > ontology where InvisibleThing is a BlueThing.
! 
! Yes, indeed. I was more thinking about some hidden stuff, like
! Shrodinger's
! cat. You don't know if it is alive or dead, but you don't know its color
! either. It has a certain probability of being blue until you open the box
! ...
! 
! > In fact keeping definition of colors that you originally proposed
! > InvisibleThing is an intersection of BlueThing, RedThing and GreenThing.
! 
! Well, I'm not sure it's the intersection, but it contains instances of all
! of those, sure.
! 
! > When you reply please consider the fact that I do not know what
! > you mean by colored things and "*Thing"-s in general.
! 
! Please consider that *I* mean nothing, as said above. Only the formal
! representation pretends to mean something. At least that's what logicians
! pretend when they speak about semantics. There are folks much more
! knowledgeable than me about it lurking on this list :))
! 
! Best
! 
! Bernard
! 
! 
Received on Saturday, 20 December 2003 02:19:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:48 GMT