Re: SUO: On the supreme supertype
>On further thought, I'd like to suggest a different possible name for the
>supreme supertype, other than "thing" or "entity" which seem to be
>traditional...
>
>Perhaps a better word for the supreme supertype could be "referent", meaning
>that which can be referenced.
>
>I'm thinking along the following lines: Whatever cannot be referenced cannot
>be described and hence cannot be categorized or placed in an ontology. Of
>that which cannot be referenced, we must be silent...
>
>This is just a thought-- I am not dogmatic about it, and don't see it as a
>major issue if people continue using "thing" or "entity" as the supreme
>supertype. I'd be interested in people's responses pro or con.
>
>Regards,
>
Note: "whatever cannot be referenced cannot be described", hence
_reference_ should be the right word. On the other hand, 'reference'
could be ambigous since it may mean both the 'act' of referencing and
the actual entity one references.
Consider also that _referent_ has a long usage history in philosophy
and then is highly 'theory-laden'.
Anyway, your proposal is valuable. For example, according to several
top-levels (Nicola Guarino's being one very clear about it), we
should distinguish at least a topmost category for 'particulars'
(individuals, more or less) and a topmost category for 'universals'
(predicates, primarily first-order ones). Then, a real supreme
supertype should embrace both particulars and universals, and
reference might be quite good at this (apart its ambiguity).
--
*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*
Aldo Gangemi
Ontology and Conceptual Modeling Group
ITBM-CNR (National Research Council)
Viale Marx 15, 00137
Roma Italy
+3906.86090249
mailto://gangemi@saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it
http://saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it