SUO: Re: SUO Comment #2
#%%THIS%%%#%%%IS%%%%#%%%NOT%%%#%%%%A%%%%#%%FRAME%%#
West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK wrote:
>
> Dear Adam,
>
> There is something underlying some of what you say below that it is not
> worth getting hung up about.
>
> Some people tend to talk about activity, and activity occurrence.
> Others (including me) tend to talk about activity class and activity.
>
> It would be good to agree on a convention, because confusion can obviously
> be caused by conversations that mix the two. But it is not important beyond
> that.
>
> Regards
> Matthew
> ============================================
> Matthew West
> Asset Information Management
> Shell Services International
> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
> E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
> http://www.shellservices.com/
> ============================================
I am wondering if it is possible to embody our ontologies
within a conceptual framework in which, just for starters,
the maximal number of the following sorts of relationships
among interpretive options and ontological/conceptual terms
are permitted and supported by the system:
<Option 1> : "activity" -<- "process"
<Option 2> : "process" -<- "activity"
<Option A> : "activity" -<- "activity class"
<Option B> : "activity occurrence" -<- "activity"
By "maximal number" I mean that each agent, interpreter, user,
or whatever is constrained only by the requirement of logical
consistency among his/her/its choices.
I think that something like this, at least, will be required
if we want to realize that old dream of Leibniz that started
this business -- to devise a common medium for resolving our
disputes and our misunderstandings through a computationally
effective means.
Anyway, that's what I rechnen.
Jon
#%%%%%%%%%#%%%%%%%%%#%%%%%%%%%#%%%%%%Jon#Awbrey%%%#