- From: Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:36:02 -0400
- To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote: > Its place may be as a superclass rather than a subclass though. If you Not necessarily. That would assert that all dependent continuents are concepts, which is not true from the realist perspective. The concept of mass is not the same as the quality mass. We could make a special CMO (Conceptual Model Ontology, which is what this work is for) Concept class, and have that be a subclass of skos:Concept and generically dependent continuent. But that should be a last-ditch effort if we can't come to a better agreement. > place skos:Concept in BFO as a subclass, you want to be sure that > every user will follow your extended contract, even if they produced > their SKOS datasets before they knew about the contract. If > skos:Concept is a superclass of something in BFO, then you are > allowing for the possibility that not all skos:Concept's will follow > the scientific realism definition of Concept. The contract has very few obligations. There are no property restrictions, for one, and the definition, as something that is not temporally dependent and does not have independent physical existence is something that seems to be inherent in the idea of what a concept is, regardless of the more specific definitions. If a concept is also being treated as a set theoretic class, then it is that too, but SKOS explicitly doesn't concern itself with that. > If ontologies are going to be useful to wide groups (even if they are > specialised), per the goals for BFO, they probably shouldn't enforce > things that users don't naturally enforce prior to and outside of > their interactions with the ontology. As I said, the only things that being a dependent continuent (or generically dependent continuent) require is non-temporality and non-independent existence. How are those not always true of concepts, even if we are staying vague with the definition of concept? Thanks, Jim -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 14:36:51 UTC