Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Fwd: Re[2]: Fwd: Re[2]: SUO: Starter Ontology Version 2

This is a forwarded message
From: Leonid Ototsky <>
To: Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM <>
Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000, 12:07:35 PM
Subject: : Re[2]: SUO: Starter Ontology Version 2

===8<==============Original message text===============

Saturday, November 04, 2000, 3:53:11 AM, you wrote:

DMBI> Leonid --

DMBI> My only previous experience with the term "meronomy" is from the field of
DMBI> lexical semantics.  D. A. Cruse (1986, p. 157) defines meronomy as "the
DMBI> part-whole type" of "branching lexical hierarchy" (as distinguished from
DMBI> taxonomies and non-branching hierarchies).  I do not believe your use of
DMBI> the term is the same, because I don't believe we would generally consider
DMBI> the temperature of a room to be "a part" or "a piece" of the room.  In
DMBI> fact, you declare that your system treats "merons" as something like
DMBI> properties, but broader.

Although  D. A. Cruse suppose  referenced to the Meyen and Shreider
works but they understood the "merons" more wide as "morphological"
and "ecological" features . As for me I prefer to use the term "properties" and
use "Meronomy" only to differ this dual part from the "Taxonomy" .

DMBI> Not to argue the use of the word meronomy, I think your main point is to
DMBI> say that things can be classified both by what they are thought to be, as
DMBI> well as by various properties they may possess.

Yes , but some notes around an extension of the term "properties" .
Even in ODMG-93 standard they differ two types of properties as
"attribute"  type and as "relation" type. From this point of view such
property of a car as "colour" is "attrbute" type but such property as
"mark" is "relation" type (we "don't want" for example explicitly
include in our instance model a relationship with the car manufacturing
companies). BTW, it is important that a using of monadic and nonmonadic
predicates is relative (!).It dependes on our model ! It is one more argument to use
"pragmatics" too in an upper ontology . I name this as "ontological
view on phenomenology" . Such model could include "analitical agents"
only as "black boxes" with inputs and outputs and only "Taxonomy" but
not the "Meronomy". Following  the ODMG-93 "ecological" approach and taking into
account the "morphological"  features it will be a uniform manner to
include the parts as "properties" too. Suppose such extension of
"properties" will be helpful (of course this is possible only when
using the Measurment Theory uniform platform for quantitative and nonquantitative

DMBI> My original point to Matthew (which now seems to have been put to rest) was
DMBI> that from an ontological perspective it is probably more profitable to
DMBI> focus on the categories of what things are thought to be rather than the
DMBI> property categories of those things.  It is perfectly valid to speak of
DMBI> "all red things", or "everything that is 21 degrees Celsius".  It's just
DMBI> that those kinds of classifications do not tend to cleave the world as
DMBI> meaningfully and usefully as categories that distinguish rooms from coats.

Of course. May be I more radical following the P-LIB approach (another
ISO TC184/SC4 standards founded on EXPRESS). They don't use the
properties without OBJECTS at all (following the EPISTLE Core model we
use more wide SUBJECTS). But this approach needs to use the Measurment
Theory approach too.
What about Matthew's example such approach rational to use in the
"inference trees" .


DMBI> This is a forwarded message
DMBI> From: Leonid Ototsky <>
DMBI> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK <>
DMBI> Date: Wednesday, November 01, 2000, 11:59:12 AM
DMBI> Subject: SUO: Starter Ontology Version 2
DMBI> ===8<==============Original message text===============
DMBI> Dear Matthew and Doug,

DMBI> Suppose your discussion around "degree of hotness" has close
DMBI> connections with the "Classification Duality Principle (CDP) ... " I
DMBI> mentioned in
DMBI> previous message. Indeed and "a member of such classes as: room, spacial
DMBI> division,
DMBI> or similar" and  a member of  "particular degree of hotness" class could be
DMBI> the
DMBI> same, but from the CDP point of view they belong to different Dual parts of
DMBI> classification system . The first one - to "Taxonomy" and the second one -
DMBI> to
DMBI> "Meronomy" . There were discussed a lot about a "source subject area"
DMBI> of a classification system which is class and transformation it into a
DMBI> "classification field" which is a set and which is a "reality" for a
DMBI> classification system with "minimal taxons" as source units. There
DMBI> were discussed such themes as hierarchy of taxons founded on "pure"
DMBI> combinations of independent "merons" (the very close to "properties" but
DMBI> suppose some more wide concept). Also there were discussions around
DMBI> "constructing"
DMBI> classes "bottom up" from properties - "merotaxons". Suppose a "Particular
DMBI> degree
DMBI> of hotness class" is typical merotaxon.
DMBI> There is another problem connected with the "degree of hotness" example .
DMBI> It is connected with taking into account an "engineering semiotics"
DMBI> mentioned in one of my previous messages.   Indeed "degree of hotness that
DMBI> when
DMBI> mapped onto the Celsius scale gives the number 21" it is an
DMBI> implementation of one of the "quantitative semantical scales" to the
DMBI> "temerature" property . From the Pragmatic point of view there could
DMBI> be defined a "normal" value for the temperature which is implemented
DMBI> may be not only to the human beings. There could be defined a
DMBI> correspondence between the values (for example 18-25 Celcius degrees).
DMBI> For this there could be defined many different classes
DMBI> (merotaxons) depending on chosen "subject area".

DMBI> Leonid

DMBI> Monday, October 30, 2000, 9:39:26 PM, you wrote:

WMMSGU>> Dear Doug,

WMMSGU>> I was just missing what you were trying to say.

WMMSGU>> See comments below.

WMMSGU>> Regards
WMMSGU>>       Matthew
WMMSGU>> ============================================
WMMSGU>> Matthew West
WMMSGU>> Operations & Asset Management
WMMSGU>> Shell Services International
WMMSGU>> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
WMMSGU>> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
WMMSGU>> Mobile: +44 7796 336538
WMMSGU>> E-mail:
WMMSGU>> ============================================

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM []
>>> Sent: 23 October 2000 03:55
>>> Cc: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK;
>>> Subject: RE: SUO: Starter Ontology Version 2
>>> Mike --
>>> Thanks for your support for my original point.  I had decided
>>> that this was
>>> just an "agree to disagree" situation, so I dropped it after
>>> a couple of
>>> rounds.
>>> Doug McDavid
>>> Certified Executive Consultant
>>> Business Innovation Services - IBM, US
>>> Member of IBM Academy of Technology
>>>  --  916-549-4600
>>> mfu@REDWOOD.RT.CS.BOEING.COM (Michael Uschold) on 10/21/2000
>>> 01:38:28 PM
>>> To:, Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
>>> cc:
>>> Subject:  RE: SUO: Starter Ontology Version 2
>>> > Dear Doug,
>>> >
>>> > You misunderstand. The room I am in is one of the things
>>> that is at that
>>> > degree of hotness that when mapped onto the Celsius scale gives the
>>> number
>>> > 21. So that degree of hotness is a class, and the room I am in is a
>>> member
>>> > of that class.
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> >       Matthew
>>> If this has already been hashed out, apologies for adding redundant
>>> remarks.
>>> BUT - This seems extremely dubious to me, ontologically.
>>> Perhaps I do not
>>> understand either. Common sense would suggest that particular
>>> room would be
>>> a member of such classes as: room, spacial division, or
>>> similar.

WMMSGU>> MW: Yes all of those.

>>> To say
>>> that
>>> it is a member of a class of "degree of hotness" seems
>>> completely off base.

WMMSGU>> MW: Ah maybe I see the confusion. When I said "so that degree of
DMBI> hotness is
WMMSGU>> a class" I did not mean " so that it follows degree of hotness is a
DMBI> class"
WMMSGU>> but "so that particular degree of hotness is a class".

>>> I would grant that a room might reasonably be viewed as a
>>> member of the
>>> class
>>> of 'things-that-have-a-degree-of-hotness',

WMMSGU>> MW: Correct.

>>> which would
>>> include any physical
>>> object but exclude things like dreams, or poems. There is
>>> also a class of
>>> 'measures-of-degree-of-hotnes' of which '21-celsius' is an instance.
>>> Mike

DMBI> Best regards,
DMBI>  Leonid                  

DMBI> ===8<===========End of original message text===========

DMBI> Best regards,
DMBI>  Leonid                  

Best regards,

===8<===========End of original message text===========

Best regards,