SUO: Functional Roles
A hunk of granit can be a table. A table can be a chair (if you sit on it), a
table can also be a hammer, if you pick it up and hammer somethign with it.
I wonder if CHris Welty and Nicola can do some of their ontological analysis
to see how to model" 'table'. One view is to say it is just a role. Something
can be a table or not be a table at different times. Is there anythign that is
alwayas and forever more a table? I'm not sure.
Mike
PS this is no longer on the mass vs count distinction, so I changed the subject header
From owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org Mon Sep 25 23:05:17 2000
X-Sender: apease@pop.teknowledge.com
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:55:09 -0700
To: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>,
David Whitten <whitten@lynx.eaze.net>,
standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
From: apease <apease@teknowledge.com>
Subject: RE: SUO: Mass vs Count distinction
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
X-Return-Path: apease@teknowledge.com
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
X-Listname: standard-upper-ontology
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: standard-upper-ontology-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
Folks,
Maybe we can refine this with a few more boundary cases. A block of
granite used as a table can be subdivided and still be both granite and
function as a table. One might take a large steel screw and machine it
into two smaller steel screws. However, it would be harder to take a
wooden chair and turn it into two smaller wooden chair.
I would submit that these examples only cause a problem because we are
confusing function and identity. What we are really saying is
(instance-of Gensym1 Wood)
(shape Gensym1 RodShaped)
or
(instance-of Gensym2 Granite)
(shape Gensym2 RectangularSolid)
or
(instance-of Gensym3 Chair)
(madeOfStuff Gensym3 Wood)
Of course, this begs the question of when to define a thing as having an
essential nature as stuff or as object but I can't seem to think of an
ambiguous case at the moment.
Adam
At 12:07 PM 9/22/2000 +0200, West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK wrote:
>Dear David,
>
>I'm afraid I have to disagree strongly with your analysis of mass-thing vs
>countable thing below, as this relates to fusion and assembly. The basic
>problem is that you have a view point from human scale. Let me try to
>explain.
>
>There are two important types of aggregation (amongst others) that I shall
>call here fusion, and assembly.
>
>Fusion
>
>For fusion, an aggregate consists of usually a large number of objects, all
>of the same type (the type may be broad or narrow).
>
>So for example, a glass of water (not counting the glass) is made up of a
>large number of water molecules. I could count the number of water
>molecules, but it would be at best tedious, and totally uninteresting.
>
>Another example is a bag of screws (not counting the bag). Here it is a
>screw that is the "atomic element" that the fusion consists of, but again it
>is unordered.
>
>It should be noted that in each case the fusion is made up of things that
>are themselves "ordered" (e.g. a water molecule, a screw).
>
>Assembly
>
>In assembly, the parts are arranged in a particular way, that means that the
>whole is more than the sum of the parts, e.g. a car is something different
>from a pile of car parts, because of the way they are put together. A water
>molecule is more that two hydrogen atoms, and an oxygen atom because of the
>way they are put toegether.
>
>Regards
> Matthew
>============================================
>Matthew West
>Asset Information Management
>Shell Services International
>H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
>Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
>Mobile: +44 7796 336538
>E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
>http://www.shellservices.com/
>============================================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Whitten [mailto:whitten@lynx.eaze.net]
> > Sent: 21 September 2000 19:29
> > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: SUO: Mass vs Count distinction
> >
> >
> >
> > John Sowa asked:
> > > But what about a wooden rod?
> > >
> > Michael Uschold had said:
> > > >Distinction: Mass-Count
> > > >Proposer: Adam Pease / Mike Uschold
> > > >Options:
> > > > X: something that cannot be divided into parts, each of which
> > > > is the same type/class of thing as the whole was.
> > > > E.g. A person, a car.
> > > >
> > > > Y: something that can be divided into parts, each of which
> > > > is the same type/class of thing as the whole was.
> > > > E.g. a quantity of sand, an amount of water
> > > >
> > > >Proposed name for Y: Mass-Thing
> > > >Proposed name for X: Countable-Thing
> > >
> > John Sowa continued:
> > > Suppose I have 5 wooden rods. Then I cut each one in half,
> > > and I get 10 wooden rods. I can count wooden rods, but when
> > > I divide them, I get more wooden rods than I started with.
> >
> > This is one the reasons I enjoy participating in the SUO mailing
> > list. We have some very capable people who are willing to ask hard
> > questions about what other very capable persons have presented.
> >
> > Incidentally, Mike's original statement above has been altered
> > by me to match my understanding (and John Sowa's pg 98 of KR)
> > of what a Mass-Noun and a Count-Noun refer to. (I swapped X & Y).
> >
> > In my opinion, being countable is saying that you can count
> > the elements in a collection, not that you necessarily want to.
> > Count-Things can be represented by sets, since you can discern
> > individual elements. Mass-Things require a collection that
> > tracks quantity, not identity of the individual elements.
> > Perhaps we need to expand this format of Mike's to include
> > this distinction as well as boundary conditions.
> >
> > One boundary seems to be on the division into parts operation
> > mentioned. I can imagine dividing each wooden rod into parts,
> > each of which would be a wooden coin.
> > In this case, the operation would be taking something I thought
> > of as a Mass-Thing (a specific group of wooden rods)
> > and producing another Mass-Thing (a specific group of wooden
> > coins) but these two groups are not of the same type/class.
> >
> > Another related boundary is interepreting the division into
> > parts operation as a division of the group of wooden rods into
> > two or more subgroups. Clearly, one wooden rod does not make a
> > group. So this division into parts operation, when applied
> > to the group as as whole, must produce subgroups, each of which
> > are the same type/class. Thus this looks like the group of
> > wooden rods is a Mass-Thing which has parts that are Count-Things.
> >
> > Another boundary is the fact that any object made of wood,
> > when separated into two or more parts, will produce objects made
> > of wood. This seems to require the group of wooden
> > rods to be composed of parts, each of which are a Mass-Thing.
> >
> > Does this match anyone else's analysis ?
> >
> > David (whitten@lynx.eaze.net) (713) 791-1414 ext 6116
> >
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571