RE: SUO: RE: Functional Roles
Concerning the meaning of a functional role for an artifact:
Adam Pease said:
> Matthew,
> I would say that IntendedFunction isn't necessary that
> would simply be the class that the object is defined as being
> an instance of. The inherent intended function of an object
> is an essential feature of its identity. There might be other
> uses for certain classes and instances of
> objects for which the relation mayBeUsedAs could be asserted.
>
> Adam
>
[PC]
What INTENDED_FUNCTION or some logically similar assertion is
needed for is to capture the meaning of what it means to have a
designed function. I'm not clear where Adam believes that the semantics
would go otherwise. e.g. to define a class cutting_device we need to
put the semantics *somewhere*, and the predicate (slot)
HAS_INTENDED_FUNCTION(cutting_device, (dissever [physical-object]))
would be a necessary predicate on that class (expressed here
overly simplistically), where the semantics can reside.
Argument 2 here is itself a predicate(in the linguistic sense).
Matthew West had said:
> >
> >May-be-used-as is in reality a class of relation, there are
> individual possible (including actual) uses of the object
>> (or class of object) in the class of activity/process.
> >
> >Intended-function is about the functional level of
> organisation, that an
> >object may have. It is a class the object is a member of (as noted,
> >potentially one of many).
> >
> >
[PC]
My intention was that INTENDED_FUNCTION and MAY_BE_USED_AS (a better
name for what I was trying to express might be IS_BEING_USED_AS) are *all*
relations, but the first would be used as a necessary predicate on each
class of artifact(with a different second argument on each class),
whereas the last is used in specific *situations* in a real or hypothetical
world to describe a use of an artifact not intended by its maker.
IS_BEING_USED_AS (to describe use of an object in a specific situation)
would not be a necessary predicate on any class. MAY_BE_USED_AS might
be an additional predicate on an artifact if in practice an artifact
designed for one purpose was often used effectively for another
purpose as well. Yes, these three would all be used differently.
If the semantics of a class is not to be specified in the
necessary predicates that define the class, I'm not clear where
they would be specified. I seem to be missing the meaning of
some terms being used here. Is there another way to specify
class definitions?
Pat Cassidy
============================================================================
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
immediately.
============================================================================