- From: John F. Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net>
- Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:36:49 -0400
- To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
- CC: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Bernard and Pat, BV> So I will define "WashingMachine", "HomeCinema", "BathTub" and > whatever you like as subclasses of "DomesticAppliance". That statement is useful to give some examples, but it is not a definition. BV> In short I have a list of sufficient conditions for this class, > but no proper necessary conditions, beyond the tautological fact > of being the value of "hasAppliance". Sure enough, if the ontology > had been set a century ago, new subclasses would have emerge since, > and an ontology set today does not want to preclude whatever the > 21st century will bring about in this domain. I agree with Pat on this issue: PH> The only thing that will do that is to somehow restrict > the range with necessary conditions. The type label DomesticAppliance is an example of what I call a 'role type'. It specifies the role of something without specifying any observable properties that characterize it. Examples include Employee, Author, Pet, Weed, or Tool. The alternative is a natural type, which is characterized by properties that can be observed in any instance of that type. Examples include HumanBeing, Dog, or Dandelion. All employees are human beings, all pets are animals (except for metaphorical extensions to pet rocks), and all weeds are plants. But there is no observable property that determines whether a particular human being is an employee, a particular animal is a pet, or a particular plant is a weed. If you want to state a decent definition, I would strongly recommend looking up the word or phrase in a good dictionary. Dictionaries designed for human readability are not as formal as a statement in logic. But for most purposes, I would trust a well-edited dictionary to be far more reliable than most so-called formal ontologies I've seen. Following is definition 2b in the Merriam-Webster 9th Collegiate Dictionary (which I like because it gives the first known year when a word appeared in some document): 2b: an instrument or device designed for a particular use; specifically: a household or office device (as a stove, fan, or refrigerator) operated by gas or electric current. Note that 'appliance' is defined as a subtype of two other role types: 'instrument' or 'device'. If you follow up those terms and delete the word senses that are not relevant, you eventually reach something like "a physical object used for some purpose." By the way, a good printed dictionary is still vastly better as an aid to the conceptual analysis necessary for ontology than those instant definitions you can get from the WWW. John Sowa
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 16:37:37 UTC