Re: SUO: RE: RE: Re: Missing Ingredients
Chris,
I'm agreed with you.!
As I wrote before ( http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg04424.html)
There are deep roots in this point of view in the Classification Theory.
Leonid
================================
Leonid Ototsky - http://ototsky.mgn.ru ,
Chief Specialist of the Computer Center,
MMK - http://www.mmk.ru ,
Russia
================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Angus" <chris.angus@btinternet.com>
To: "Murray Altheim" <m.altheim@open.ac.uk>; "Richard Cooper"
<rich@valutech.com>
Cc: "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@attbi.com>; "Joshua Allen"
<joshuaa@microsoft.com>; "Tom Johnston" <tjohnston@acm.org>; "Jon Awbrey"
<jawbrey@att.net>; "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:29 AM
Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: Re: Missing Ingredients
>
>
> Murray wrote:
> > My understanding of individuals, based on reading Sowa's books, a
> > number of KR-related papers, etc., and upon the Cyc and ISO 15926
> > ontologies (IOW, there is no definitive answer, just ontological
> > commitments -- you choose among the field), is that an "individual"
> > can be thought of either as a class to which all individuals are
> > members, or as a specific individual, i.e., an instance. The
> > definitions in ISO 15926 are quite complex as regards this particular
> > aspect of representation, way more complex than I myself need. I'd
> > recommend browsing the links I provided for ISO 15926 and Cyc in
> > this regard, as all I'd do is probably quote from them. [Oops!
> > I just realized my response was on the CG list:
>
> I believe that the distinction between "individual" and "instance" in ISO
> 15926 is that an individual is an individuated thing that has existence as
> opposed to a class or relation whereas an instance is something that is a
> member of a class. An individual may also be an instance (indeed in the
> general case an instance of a number of classes), an instance need not be
an
> individual - it may be a class.
>
> Regards
> Chris Angus
>