Re: Time, Causality and Demand-Pull
> Partridge:
> > ...What I am still trying to understand is why PSL should choose a
> > formulation whose natural interpretation seems to run contrary to (in
> > my opinion) most peoples' natural intuition of the before relation
> > between occurrences - when a more 'natural' formalisation seems
> > possible.
>Menzel:
> Intervals and timepoints *both* seem to be part of a commonsense
> ontology of activities, and there are ways of defining each in terms of
> the other, so it doesn't really matter which we start with -- though
> perhaps then both should be part of a basic formalization of the
> commonsense ontology.
A question for Chris Menzel: Do I remember correctly that "discrete v.
continuous" was one of the upper level master distinctions that came out
of the Heidelberg meeting whose final statement you worked on? If one is
interested in integrating or aligning disparate ontologies, is the
discrete-continuous distinction an indispensible upper level concept? How
does it apply to time? Would a process ontology like PSL based on a
radical discretization of time be interoperable with one based on a
continuous view within an upper level of the kind that was envsiaged at
Heidelberg?
Lee