W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Why do you want to do that?

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:46:20 -0700
Message-ID: <AF273AF69DDF4A56B576BB75A42B71FE@rhm8200>
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Adam Pease" <adampease@earthlink.net>, "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "KR-language" <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>

Hi Frank
OK, I have been convinced there's a reason why you would want to do that.
The downside is that you introduce another ambiguity, which must be resolved
by context.
Humans are pretty good at doing that.
One aim of mKR is to make them even better at doing that.

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: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>; "Adam Pease" <adampease@earthlink.net>; 
"Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "KR-language" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?

> On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>> I finally got a few minutes to read OWL Guide 3.1.3
>> I read that section as supporting my position.  The word "context"  is 
>> mentioned
>> several times, with the implication that X ismem IndividualSet; in  one 
>> context,
>> and X ismem ClassSet; in a different context.
> Dick--
> I originally cited section 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide to answer a question 
> you posed in your original message:  why someone might want an  individual 
> to also be a class.  Specifically:
> "The wine ontology as it currently exists would require the ability to 
> treat classes as instances in order to support such an interpretation. 
> Note that OWL Full permits such expressivity, allowing us to treat an 
> instance of a wine variety simultaneously as a class whose instances  are 
> bottles of wine."
> and also
> "Adding that the wine produced in the year 2000 is considered a  vintage 
> poses a challenge, because we don't have the ability to  represent a 
> subset of a given wine individual. This vintage is not a  new variety of 
> wine, it is a special subset of the wine - that  produced in the year 
> 2000. An option would be to use OWL Full and  treat the wine instances as 
> classes with subclasses (subsets) denoting  vintages. "
> Other examples (outside the OWL Guide) of why it can be useful to  treat 
> an individual as a class (or vice-versa) can also be cited.   Perhaps you 
> could clarify your position you think OWL Guide 3.1.3  supports?  It 
> doesn't seem to support a position (if that's your  position) that no one 
> would want to do that.
> --Frank
>>>> 2. X  type  Y;  X  subClassOf  Z;
>>>> Another neat property: X is an individual and a class.
>>>> Now I can ... What?  I don't know.
>>>> Why do you want to do that?
>>> How about the example in Section 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide?
>>> --Frank
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 17:47:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:08 UTC