- From: Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:09:26 -0400
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Two small cents: there's > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-skos-primer-20090818/#secskosowl which > mentions the possibility for classes to be treated as concepts as well. > Intuitively, it does not seem in blatant contraction with your proposal, > though. I wrote CMO with that usage in mind, along with the idea that some clases (i.e. realist classes) are not themselves concepts, but other classes may very well be. > But this is just intuition, I must say that I don't know BFO. If you have > somewhere a class for classes, and if (for some reason that wouldn't be > intuitive to me) this class is asserted to be disjoint with the one of > generically dependent continuents, then there might be issues. CMO contains two meta-classes, one of which is cmo:Type, a subclass of skos:Concept. The other is cmo:UniversalClass, which is a subclass of independent continuent. Universal classes cannot be concepts, but can be represented by concepts. This distinction is what allows integration between realist and conceptual/linguistic ones while knowing what side of the fence it sits. 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 Monday, 11 April 2011 17:10:44 UTC