Re: Why do you want to do that?

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;
http://mKRmKE.org/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>; "SWIG" 
<semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?


> Dick--
>
> But you still haven't explained what the ambiguity is you were  referring 
> to.  This new example doesn't help me.  If you mean by  "airplane car" a 
> class of things that are both airplanes and cars, I  don't see any 
> ambiguity with it:  people have (and do) make things  that are both 
> airplanes and cars.
**** I guess I'll have to think of a better example.
>
> A basic issue you might address is how someone can make statements  about 
> a class if the class can't also be treated as an individual.
***** In mKR, you can make statements about classes.
***** In RDF, I'm not sure what the restrictions are.
>
> --Frank
>
> On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Frank
>>
>> I hear you, but I don't think "green car" captures the nature of the 
>> ambiguity.
>> It's more like an "airplane car".
>>
>> 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;
>> http://mKRmKE.org/
>>
>> ----- 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" 
>> ><KR-language@YahooGroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?
>>
>>
>>> Dick--
>>>
>>> What's the ambiguity that's introduced?  It seems to me that when  I 
>>> treat something as both an individual and a class, in a logical 
>>> language that allows it, it's perfectly unambiguous that you're  doing 
>>> that.  If I have a green car, something that's both a car  and a green 
>>> thing, there's no "ambiguity" as to whether it's a car  or a green 
>>> thing;  it's just both. In these examples from the OWL  Guide  (assuming 
>>> you choose to use OWL Full as indicated), there  isn't any  ambiguity 
>>> either;  something is simply both an  individual and a class.
>>>
>>> --Frank
>>>
>>> On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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;
>>>> http://mKRmKE.org/
>>>>
>>>> ----- 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" 
>>>> > ><KR-language@YahooGroups.com
>>>> 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 Wednesday, 13 August 2008 18:29:01 UTC