John, Deborah,
I agree with some of Deborah's choices of terms, Facet seems to come close, but I do have to agree with John. Relying on a natural language term to describe an element of ontology is a flirtation with peril (as I have been personally experiencing).
Chuck
Charles Turnitsa
Project Scientist
Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
Old Dominion University Research Foundation
7000 College Drive
Suffolk, Virginia 23435
(757) 638-6315 (voice)
(757) 686-6214 (fax)
cturnits@xxxxxxx
-----ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John A. Bateman" <bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 19/01/2007 04:04PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Defining Concept
> Facet
>
> Assembly
>
> Bound or Bounded
>
> Prime (as in an indivisible prime number)
>
> Set
>
> Totality
>
> or
>
> Resource
er... what problem is being sorted out here? All of these
terms are already overloaded to the nth degree and
have non-overlapping meanings; as does
Aspect. If there was ever a good example of why ontology
can and should use an axiomatised formalisation
instead of natural language terms, then
I guess this is it! :-)
John B.
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx