Print

Print


Compare the definitions for
Collection<http://sw.opencyc.org/2012/05/10/concept/en/Collection>
, Set <http://sw.opencyc.org/2012/05/10/concept/en/Set_Mathematical> , and
Group <http://sw.opencyc.org/2012/05/10/concept/en/Group> (and
possibly Mob<http://sw.opencyc.org/2012/05/10/concept/en/Mob>
).

Also relevant are Conceptual
work<http://sw.opencyc.org/2012/05/10/concept/en/ConceptualWork> and
InformationBearingThing<http://sw.opencyc.org/2012/05/10/concept/en/InformationBearingThing>,
 It is interesting to note that this model allows for
InformationBearingThings that are not propositional; this is different to
the CIDOC model, but I tend to go with Buckland and Briet, and say that
there  is necessarily at least one proposition associated with any IBT- The
frog in the museum carries  at least  the propositional content that the
curator of the museum asserted that "this is a frog".  (Mutilated example
 from better one by Martin Doerr (I think)),  I exceeded my antelope quota.

The information models are worth looking at, (especially if you have a
ResearchCyc license).  I'm told that the ontologist who developed the model
was heavily influenced by  Lubetzky and his intellectual heirs.

Simon

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Diane Hillmann
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> I'd like to support Casey's point about whole-part relationships not being
> all of one kind. In the dim mists of the past, MARBI was considering a
> proposal to support the creation of relationships between separate items
> that had been bound together and so necessarily shared a barcode. (I think
> this was it: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/1999/99-02.html).  It's
> interesting how similar the discussion seems to be to some of the FRBR
> relationship discussions.
>
> In any case, the discussion of the proposal ultimately came down to the
> differences between bibliographic relationships (between editions, for
> instance) and physical relationships (items bound and circulated together,
> sometimes for obvious reasons--issues of a serial--or for reasons unclear
> but relating to practices a century or so ago). I was dealing with
> miscellaneous collections of pamphlets bound together at the time, so the
> problem was not abstract from my point of view.
>
> As I recall, the much-to-simple solution proposed originally by a vendor
> were not accepted, largely because of the discussion at the meeting.
> Although these situations seem so rare that they should not interfere with
> our quest for simplicity, in fact they are often cases that can teach us
> quite a bit about the limits of simplification in whatever model of the
> world we're looking at.
>
> Diane
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Simon Spero wrote:
>>
>> >       (1) Everything which is eaten by something is a food.
>> >
>> >       (2) Everything that a carnivore eats is an animal.  Everything
>> that
>> > eats an animal is a carnivore.
>> >
>> >       (3) Everything that a herbivore eats is a plant.  Everything that
>> eats
>> > a plant is a herbivore.
>> >
>> >       (4) Every fly  is an animal. Every antelope is an animal. Every
>> flytrap
>> > is a plant.
>> >
>> >       (5) Fred is a fly. Audrey is a flytrap.  Ann is an antelope. Noel
>> is a
>> > grass.  Agatha is an antelope.
>> >
>> >       (6) Audrey eats Fred. Ann eats Audrey.  Ann eats Noel.
>> >
>> >  Let's think about how this can be translated to OWL, then consider what
>> > other sentences are entailed.
>>
>> Wow, this is like working on the MENSA quiz in the airline magazine on
>> the way to an ALA conference!  ;)
>>
>> Kevin M. Randall
>> Principal Serials Cataloger
>> Northwestern University Library
>> [log in to unmask]
>> (847) 491-2939
>>
>> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>>
>
>