RE: SUO: RE: First piece of 4D ontology
Dear Robert,
> ### Ian, Matthew,
>
> ### am traveling in US so replies may be a bit slower. I had
> also noticed the relationship between in Matthew's axioms #3
> and #4 but in fact, why does the comment of #3 talk about
> classes while the code is expressed using collection? Is that
> accidental or intentional.
MW: Just an editiing accident. I'm having troubles picking and using terms
consistently for the meanings I have.
> Similarly, is "member of" the same
> as "is a"?
MW: Well I don't like to use "is a" because it can be ambiguous in natural
language, being commonly used both for subclass-of and member-of.
>
> ### BTW these 4 axioms don't tell me a whole lot... not to
> mention the serious agreement one needs about the "exists"
> predicate and the implicit membership/is_a semantics. I
> wonder how to use them.
MW: Please elaborate on the "serious agreement" that is needed.
> Is there more to come?
MW: Well the title does say "First piece", so I hope so, as time permits.
>
> --Robert Meersman
>
>
> >
> >Matthew,
> >
> > Please see my comments below.
> >
> >-Ian
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> >> [mailto:Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 1:22 AM
> >> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> >> Subject: First piece of 4D ontology
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Colleagues,
> >>
> >> Please find below a first piece of a 4D ontology.
> >>
> >> I'd like to thank Pat Hayes for reviewing some early drafts.
> >>
> >> Comment text is of two types:
> >> 1. Translations into English of the KIF below. I assume that
> >> eventually automatic translation from KIF into e.g. ACE
> >> will be possible for human interaction.
> >> 2. Structuring information, e.g. Subject Area, Theory,
> Statement No.
> >> These are things that I think we need to support engineering
> >> an ontology (vs. saying what we mean) which I hope will be
> >> supported by KIF before long.
> >>
> >> Comments are welcomed.
> >>
> >> ; Subject Area: Thing
> >> ;
> >> ; theory: individual and collection
> >> ; uses:
> >> ;
> >> ; #1:
> >> ;
> >> ; For all X, X is a thing.
> >> ;
> >> ; i.e. that which everything is a member of.
> >> ;
> >> ; Note 1: In First Order Logic there is no need to make any
> >> declaration,
> >> ; (forall ?x ...) is sufficient.
> >> ; Note 2: This means that all collections will be a
> subclass of thing.
> >
> >This axiom also appears in the merged ontology. There it
> has the following
> >form: (forall (?X) (instance-of ?X Entity))
> >
> >> ;
> >> ; #2:
> >> ;
> >> ; for all X, if there exists a Y and Y is a member of X,
> then X is a
> >> ; member of collection.
> >> ;
> >> ; i.e. any thing that has a member is a collection.
> >> ;
> >> (forall ?x
> >> (=> (exists ?y
> >> (?x ?y)
> >> )
> >> (collection ?x)
> >> )
> >> )
> >> ; Note: This (?x ?y) is not valid SUO-KIF today, but I
> understand it
> >> ; will be in the near future.
> >
> >You could express (?x ?y) as (instance-of ?y ?x), which is
> syntactically
> >well-formed SUO-KIF. However, it is also not a first-order
> sentence.
> >
> >I'm wondering what you mean by "collection" in your axiom.
> I thought we
> >were using this term to denote things like wolf packs,
> football teams, etc.,
> >which are set-like, in that they have members, but, unlike
> sets, they have a
> >spatio-temporal location. However, if this is what you
> mean, then you
> >exclude sets and classes, which have members but are not
> collections in the
> >sense just explained.
> >
> >> ;
> >> ; #3:
> >> ;
> >> ; For all X, X is an individual, or X is a class.
> >> ;
> >> ; i.e. everything is either an individual or a class
> >> ;
> >> (forall ?x
> >> (or (individual ?x)
> >> (collection ?x)
> >> )
> >> )
> >
> >Note that axiom #3 is redundant, since it is logically
> entailed by axiom #4.
> >
> >> ;
> >> ; #4:
> >> ;
> >> ; For all X, if X is a member of collection then X is not a
> >> ; member of individual and vice versa.
> >> ;
> >> ; i.e. any thing that is not a collection is an individual, and
> >> ; vice-versa.
> >> ;
> >> (forall ?x
> >> (<=> (collection ?x)
> >> (not (individual ?x))
> >> )
> >> )
> >
> >My earlier comment about "collection" applies here as well,
> since this axiom
> >appears to rule out sets and classes.
> >
> >> ;
> >> ; end theory
> >> ;
> >> ; end subject area
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Matthew
> >> ============================================================
> >> Matthew West
> >> Operations & Asset Management - Shell Services International
> >> Shell Visiting Professor, The Keyworth Institute
> >>
> >> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> >> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> >>
> >> http://www.shellservices.com/
> >> http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
> >> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >> ============================================================
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Regards
Matthew
============================================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management - Shell Services International
Shell Visiting Professor, The Keyworth Institute
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
http://www.shellservices.com/
http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
============================================================