Re: TMRM: isa/sub - irreflexive relation vs. reflexive relation

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:43:20PM +0200, Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> [...]
> >    lheuer isa lheuer
> 
> > would undermine that idea. It would make lheuer an individual, and
> > also a class (on its own).
> 
> Yep. Well, a technology I heard of (iirc it is called RDF) uses it:
> 
>      rdfs:Class isa rdfs:Class

1) You mean RDF/S.

2) Ever wondered why you will not find

       owl:Class isa owl:Class

?

> > One can still assert it explicitly, but
> > according to TMRM it would not appear intrinsically.
> 
> So it would be valid to add a statement x isa x to a TMRM map?

If you do that the resulting map would not be a TMRM map with that
default ontological commitment. You sure can add it though. But then
you have your own commitments, as the Note 3 cleverly forsees
(Patrick's hand, not mine).

\rho