[Person-ontology] first contributions - is the Higgins top-level useful?

[Paul Trevithick]

What I meant by the two statements "value1 expires Jan 1, 2010" and "value1
source DMV" taken together is that the fact that Adam has blonde hair as
attested by the DMV is a statement that is considered authoritative on or
before Jan 1, 2010. "DMV" is the source of the value, "Jan 1, 2010" is the
date after which they are no longer willing to stand behind that assertion. 

 

  _____  

From: David Whitten [mailto:david.j.whitten at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:27 PM
To: Paul Trevithick
Cc: phmartin at phmartin.info; person-ontology at idcommons.net
Subject: Re: [Person-ontology] first contributions - is the Higgins
top-level useful?

 



On 10/9/07, Paul Trevithick <paul at socialphysics.org> wrote:

If we just use a triple "Adam hasHairColor blonde" where blonde is a
literal, we've no ability to make statements about the value "blonde". So
what we do in Higgins is use two triples shown loosely here: 

   Adam hasHairColor value1
   value1 value "blonde"
   value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
   value1 source "Dept of Motor Vehicles"

Where "value1" is a subclass of Value (probably StringValue, to be precise).




Naively, I  wonder what you mean by value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
does the blonde-ness of Adam's hair expire? 

If you mean that the hair color information is known to be good on Jan 1,
2010, good for you,
but I find even that confusing.
 
In general, this seems like some categorial error of talking about a value
having an expiration date.
The best I can assume from this snippet is that Adam's driver's license is
expiring in Jan 1, 2010
which is totally different...

David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://idcommons.net/pipermail/person-ontology/attachments/20071009/462e7176/attachment.htm