- From: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:15:09 +0200
- To: Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@gmail.com>
- Cc: paola.dimaio@gmail.com, public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>, public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF644F7A0D.18C14F79-ONC12575A8.0046B0D6-C12575A8.0048CEB4@it.ibm.com>
Hi Gary, yes, both Barry Smith and Nicola Guarino make use of this fundamental distinction between 'continuant' and 'occurrent' ('endurant' and 'perdurant' in DOLCE) which roots in the classic works of Peter Simons, and maybe dates back at the time of Heraclitus and Parmenides :-) Now, if we are developing and ontology, the problem is whether we are going to embrace a foundational layer or not, and if yes (which is advisable in my opinion) which one. Or maybe we are content with a vocabulary, that just requires 'soft' lexical relationships, and we don't need categories at all. Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards, Guido Vetere Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome ----------------------- IBM Italia S.p.A. via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome, Italy ----------------------- mail: gvetere@it.ibm.com phone: +39 06 59662137 mobile: +39 335 7454658 Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@gmail.com> 27/04/2009 17.05 To Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT cc paola.dimaio@gmail.com, public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>, public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org Subject Re: Standard ontological relations for our voc -leverating Obo relations Guido, Here is a quick response to your remarks - we may want to dialog on this to reach an understanding and get back to the group. >It seems that OBO relations are defined over 'continuants' (i.e., roughly, objects) and 'occurrents' (processes) but I don't find a 'foundational ontology' where these two classes are defined (maybe I miss something?) In the OCO Foundry ontologies there is a the top level division corresponding to the ways the entities exist in time. As I believe you know this follows Barry Smith's Snap vs. Span perspctives, but seems compatible with DOLCE. So they have ?Continuants? endure through time. ?Occurrents? (processes) unfold through time in successive stages. Continuants are divided into physical things, on the one hand, and qualities and functions, on the other. The latter are dependent continuants: a quality such as the shape of a fly?s wing depends for its existence on, and endures through time in tandem with, the wing that is its bearer; a function, such as the function of an enzyme to catalyze reactions of a certain type, similarly endures through time in tandem with the enzyme itself and exists even when it is not being exercised in any instance of that reaction. You can see a basic discussion of this at: www.openehr.org/wiki/download/attachments/196630/NBT_OBO.pdf?version=1 On your 2nd remark >I would suggest avoiding the mix of is_a with first-order relationships like 'part', since the former has a specific logical import (subclass of) which is natively axiomatized in any description logic like owl. My take on this is that while we start with a representational languages given relations we develope the ones we need using them and just be clear what the semantics of the various part relations are (proper part vs contained in). That is, we aren't limited to the "natively axiomatized " ones as long as we provide sutible axioms. Gary Berg-Cross,Ph.D. gbergcross@gmail.com http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross SOCoP Executive Secretary Principal, EM&I Semantic Technology Potomac, MD 301-762-5441 On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote: Gary, two quick remarks: It seems that OBO relations are defined over 'continuants' (i.e., roughly, objects) and 'occurrents' (processes) but I don't find a 'foundational ontology' where these two classes are defined (maybe I miss something?) I would suggest avoiding the mix of is_a with first-order relationships like 'part', since the former has a specific logical import (subclass of) which is natively axiomatized in any description logic like owl. Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards, Guido Vetere Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome ----------------------- IBM Italia S.p.A. via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome, Italy ----------------------- mail: gvetere@it.ibm.com phone: +39 06 59662137 mobile: +39 335 7454658 IBM Italia S.p.A. Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) Cap. Soc. euro 400.001.359 C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153 Societą soggetta all?attivitą di direzione e coordinamento di International Business Machines Corporation (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:16:34 UTC