- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: 2008年8月13日 16:58:36 -0400
- To: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@PioneerCA.com>
- Cc: "SWIG" <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <0AFCD7CB-C2A1-41CE-A7A6-9B6385E91F06@acm.org>
On Aug 13, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote: > > See below. > Dick McCullough See below. --Frank > > > ----- 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. There aren't any classes in RDF (per se); in RDFS there are classes, and they can be treated as individuals (which is where we came in, more or less). That is, in RDFS a class is a resource (like everything else that can be referred to in RDFS), and resources can be the subjects of triples. --Frank > >> >> --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. snip
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 20:59:22 UTC