RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
Doug,
The point here is not the particular example. You made a claim that
"the conformance as stipulated militates against interesting and useful
elaboration." I provided an example of a conforming elaboration. One
could certainly provide additional conforming elaboration for social
giving, giving something as part of an exchange in kind, giving for
political favors, giving money in exchange for a tangible good etc, but
that's not the point.
Adam
At 04:12 PM 2/5/2002 -0800, Douglas McDavid wrote:
>Adam --
>
>How does this differentiate charitable giving from, say, social giving
>(e.g. a birthday present)?
>
>
>Doug
>
>
>Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com> on 02/05/2002 12:56:47 PM
>
>To: Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
>cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Formal SUMO Draft
>
>
>
>Doug,
> Let's make an example of an interesting elaboration then.
>
>(=>
> (and
> (instance ?GIVE CharitableGiving)
> (agent ?GIVE ?AGENT)
> (recipient ?GIVE ?REC)
> (patient ?GIVE ?OBJ))
> (and
> (wants ?REC ?OBJ)
> (inScopeOfInterest ?AGENT ?REC)))
>
>(disjoint CharitableGiving Transaction)
>
>Here are two axioms that create a new class of CharitableGiving, and define
>it in terms of other SUMO terms. It is an interesting elaboration and it
>is a conforming one according to my proposed conformance statement.
>
>Adam
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571