[Freebase-discuss] one phylogeny
thadguidry at gmail.com
Mon Oct 11 03:47:19 UTC 2010
Back to Spencer's subject at hand..
>> 2. Subject - which we have now as part of /common/topic/subjects and
>> 3. Container - we have on certain types only, as I understand. (contains /
>> containedby) which to me is still Set Theory with broader/narrower or
>> parent/child. True ?
> are there other container types besides /location/location and
> extraterrestrial location?
> maybe a 'type of location'~, like fingers are contained by the hand...
Hmm, when you mentioned the finger/hand scenario, I immediately
thought of a toes/foot scenario I came across with Group under COSMO
while browsing OOR's sandbox. If you notice, the author mentions
group<->members and disjoints with the notion of Collections "Note
that instances of #$Group are _not_ collections" Here's the link that
takes you right to the details paragraph on OOR's sandbox:
Incidentally, COSMO's GROUP/AgentGroup
http://oor-01.cim3.net/visualize/10149/?conceptid=AgentGroup is what I
effectively mapped to FOAF's idea of GROUP. Now also shown and mapped
>> With those (and 64k is all we'll ever need), I think ANY ontology could be
>> built, both up & down, and sideways.
> I agree,
> is there like a turing completeness for ontologies?
No, hardly so, but ontologies can be effectively mapped and should be
for usefulness (I think this is what Sir Tim Berners Lee is really
trying to get us to think about and to stop wasting time with on-off's
and start linking and collaborating more. And as Tom has pointed out
in the past, I think the responsible party's that own the data should
be the folks doing the linking and not expect the rest of the world to
do it for them. N'est Pas ?)
More information about the Freebase-discuss