[seek-kr-sms] algorithms and the owlfication of taxon

[Bertram Ludaescher]

>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:55:24 -0700
>>> Nico Franz <franz at nceas.ucsb.edu> wrote: 
...
NF> Because of the nestedness it's clear that elements that function as 
NF> "instances" at a higher level immediately become "classes" (with 
NF> properties) at the next lower level.

Maybe, or maybe not. Could one not distinguish, e.g., between an
"element as instance" and "element as class"? Things that hold for the
former may not hold for the latter and vice versa. We simply
distinguish between elements/terms/concepts when used at the instance
vs. when used at the class level.

Let me make a simplifying example: Say you've figured out a way to
represent all your information in the form of triples (X,Y,Z). 
If a term t occurs in the X position (call it the instance position),
it doesn't say anything about t occurring in the Z position (call it
the class position, provided Y has some "class-valued property" say
"hasClass"). 

So we can distinguish between 't as an instance' and 't as a class'.
It is up to some convention (or aximomatization) to establish a link
between these two uses of t.

Can we express this link that taxonomists make? Do they identify the
two uses of t? Is there never a distinction between a species (name?
concept? element?) when used in the instance sense vs. in the class
sense?

Bertram