- From: Dan Corwin <dan@lexikos.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:51:56 -0400
- To: dan.russler@oracle.com
- CC: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>, Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, public-hcls-coi@w3.org, Elkin.Peter@MAYO.EDU
Dan Russler wrote: > Actually, this list might be too long! > > Many of these break down on utility, at least on "easy to define and > decide." Definitions for these discriminants are easy to find, in the same way one finds ontologies at levels 1, 2... I have adapted (and I recommend) those of John Sowa. http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm Deciding is something that needs to be done for each term in each ontology, by its publisher. If it does not happen explicitly, concepts get conflated, which becomes a huge source of confusion later for others. Declaring which discriminants apply to each term must become part of the minimum level of documentation that SW deems acceptable for published ontologies. Without it, ontology concepts will stay undefined along at least one fundamental semantic dimension. That lets people (mis)use them, so they inevitably will, which is exactly counter to *the* core goal for any ontology. Hard or easy, the utility gained fully merits its costs. best regards, Dan Corwin > Kashyap, Vipul wrote: >> Physical vrs Informational >> Natural vrs Artificial >> Real vrs Imaginary >> Composite vrs Characteristic >> Individual vrs Collective >> Atomic vrs Mediating >> Specific vrs Indefinite >> Continuant vrs Occurrent >> >> Not many discriminants can be found which are simultaneously >> orthogonal (independent of one another) and general (can be applied to >> anything) and useful (easy to clearly define and decide). The >> listing above may in fact be nearly complete (although many would >> debate its specifics or suggest other candidates). >> >> Regardless of the particulars, I suggest that a better /semantic/ >> model for your "layer 0" would be all and only those discriminants >> which have all three qualities - independence, generality, and utility >> - and hence can be employed to help define any class or instance desired. >> >> [VK] Thanks, Dan! This is a very good guideline and framework to work >> from. >> >> Cheers, >> >> ---Vipul >> The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only >> for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential >> and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other >> use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or >> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this >> information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and >> properly dispose of this information. >> >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:53:13 UTC