Re: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Adam --
Thanks again for the clarifications.
As I understand it now, SUMO apparently pushes down to
the instance level certain concepts such as "Student" and
other social roles, but also "Law" and "Obligation".
Is this predominantly a consequence of trying to avoid
reifying roles as classes, or are there other motivations
as well? Do you think this is necessary, or is it
believed to have some beneficial computational properties?
Pat
=========
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> Pat,
> If you had an application that required you to reason about a muscle
> as both a BodyPart and Food you could simple define a particular
> instance as such. This might be unsatisfying to someone who wants (for
> some reason) a pure treatment that somehow separates out classes from
> contexts and roles, but I don't see that it causes a practical problem
> in knowledge representation. Do you have an example that shows a problem?
> I don't think the issue of roles is particular to a 3D approach, but
> to your specific question of how to represent PartTimeStudent (leaving
> aside for the moment whether that deserves to be reified), it would
> presumably be a &%subAttribute of &%Student.
> To specify the characteristics of Student, one could use axioms, just
> as for the definition of any other term, for example
>
> (=>
> (attribute ?X Student)
> (capability EducationalProcess patient ?X))
>
> Adam
>
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
internet: cassidy@micra.com
=============================================