Re: SUO: On the supreme supertype -- RE: RE: RE: RE: On the relevance of EXPRESS, EPISTLE, etc. to SUO
what is the advantage of referent over thing or entity? Are not thing and
entity also that which can be referenced? I'm unclear on what the import
of this is.
Mike
----
From owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org Tue Feb 20 03:42:13 2001
From: "Philip Jackson" <phil.jackson@computer.org>
To: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>,
"Standard-Upper-Ontology \(E-mail\)" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Subject: SUO: On the supreme supertype -- RE: RE: RE: RE: On the relevance of EXPRESS, EPISTLE, etc. to SUO
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:40:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance: Normal
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
X-Listname: standard-upper-ontology
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: standard-upper-ontology-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
Dear Matthew,
> > > > > MW: In EPISTLE we modestly claim that the EPISTLE Core Model can
> > > > > represent "life the universe and everything" (well almost).
> > > >
> > > > PJ: OK, how about the phrase "life, the universe and everything"
> > > > as another
> > > > "challenge concept"? How would you represent this in EPISTLE?
> > >
> > > MW: Well I guess the simple answer is "thing" our supreme
> > > supertype. That of
> > > course is the set of all things, which includes classes and
> > > relations and so
> > > on.
> >
> > PJ: OK, I'll accept this answer for "everything" :-)
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,
Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is
limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com