From: Chris M. <cj...@fr...> - 2008-01-28 03:02:46
|
On Jan 26, 2008, at 12:11 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2008, at 6:20 PM, Chris Mungall wrote: >> We also want to avoid creating new sources of confusion (example: >> is a disposition to blink in bright light the same as sensitivity >> to light?) > > Is the suggestion is that one is a disposition and the other a > quality? If so, I don't agree. Both of them are dispositions, and, > other than being perhaps subtly different they amount to pretty > much the same thing. I think it is the language that is confusing, > and if we uniformly apply the exercise of asking how it is possible > to know whether the entity exists, and checking if a process is > implied, then we can ferret out all the dispositions. OK, not a good example. What about our favourite, colour? > How these are presented to a user is another matter. If need be the > interface could be made to mix the qualities and dispositions > together, if that's what's easier for the users to manage. But I > don't think decisions on UI or other user requirements should > influence what the structure of the ontology is - that has to make > sense to the idiot machines. Yes >> This isn't coming out of nowhere: it's been languishing in the >> tracker the last 9 months: >> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php? >> func=detail&aid=1675411&group_id=76834&atid=595654 > > > I just added a bunch more terms that are listed as qualities but > are probably dispositions to the tracker entry. I had communicated > by email about them, but forgot to put them there. Thanks, good examples there > -Alan > |