- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: 2008年8月13日 10:46:00 -0400
- To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@PioneerCA.com>, SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <D0A86D31-5416-462D-8193-9DAE6BB0C575@acm.org>
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. 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. --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 14:46:49 UTC