Re: Why do you want to do that?

Hi Denny
You're right as usual.
See below.

Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Denny Vrandečić" <>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <>; "Semantic Web at W3C" 
<>; "KR-language" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?

> Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Denny Vrandečić"
>>> Another example: why cannot Eagle be both a class (for "Fred the eagle")
>>> and an individual (instantiating the class "species")? (similar to
>>> Boris' example from his paper)
>> It can, but my point is that these are two different
>> word-senses/meanings/definitions
>> which are defined in two different contexts.  They are "view"ed as
>> different things
>> in these two different contexts.
>>    at view = class { Fred the eagle isu Eagle; };
>>    at view = individual { Eagle isu species; };     # Aside:  I would
>> treat this "Eagle" as a subClass, not an Individual:  Eagle iss species;
> I disagree here with your aside: Eagle is not a subclass of species, but
> a subclass of animal. Eagle is indeed an instance of species. I assume
> that subclassing means that every instance of a subclass is also an
> instance of the superclass, which, in the case that Eagle would be a
> subclass of species would mean that Fred the Eagle is also a species. Or
> does your definition of subclass also differ (which would be fine, but
> important to know)?
I think you are using all the terms properly.
I got off on the wrong foot, because I treated "species" like an
"unknown" class -- I wasn't thinking of its usual meaning.
>> When you mix the contexts together
>>    at view = mix { Fred the eagle isu Eagle; Eagle isu species; };
>> the meaning of "Eagle" in the first statement is different from
>> the meaning of "Eagle" in the second statement.
>> "Eagle" is a name which refers to two different concepts, which
>> we might designate as Eagle_class and Eagle_individual.
>> Declaring that "Eagle" is a Class and an Individual only compounds
>> the confusion.
> Yes, I understand your position, and I agree that it is indeed a
> reasonable and possible position -- as said, OWL DL, e.g. takes it, and
> you say Ayn Rand also supports it :) Nevertheless I personally think
> that it is easier to allow to state the equivalence of the class Eagle
> and the individual eagle, and that this is actually less confusing for
> the normal user. So, for me, I got a deeper understanding of the topic
> but still remain with Pat's definitions (as they are in RDF or OWL2).

Two quick thoughts:
1. You will have to rely on context to determine which "Eagle" is meant
in any particular proposition.
2. Why don't the different versions of OWL consistently use the
same definitions?
> I guess, we agree to disagree :)
> I mean, heck, the normal user hardly understands the difference between
> the <strong> and the <b> tag in HTML, and we want him to figure out the
> difference between Eagle_class and Eagle_individual?
>> 1. I think that my definitions of "individual" and "class" are consistent
>> with the description at the beginning of section 3.1.3 of OWL Guide.
> OK, this makes sense.
>> 2. My ultimate source of definitions is the "unit" and "concept" of
>> Ayn Rand (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).
>> I guess I should "shut up" and refer you to Ayn Rand.
>> She has a knack for clear explanations; I do not.
> I guess I should read Ayn Rand. Being rather strongly influenced by
> constructivist epistemology I am afraid this won't be an easy read for
> me and may take a while...
>>> And now back to my thesis ...
>> What's your thesis topic?
> Ontology evaluation :) [1]
> Cheers,
> denny
> [1]
> <>

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 17:47:11 UTC