A web-based SUO Glossary -- RE: SUO: More Documentation, Please
To illustrate what is possible with Quickbase, so that people can decide
whether they want to use this approach or not, I've gone ahead and created a
small SUO Glossary at:
https://www.quickbase.com/db/6urbwpxk
To "prime the pump" in this demonstration, I've added a few definitions from
John Sowa's ontology glossary at
http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/gloss.htm, citing him as the author of
these definitions. (John, I hope this was ok to do -- if not, or if I have
made any other errors in doing this, we can delete or modify these
definitions.)
Anyone can read, create, update, or delete records in this database, so it
is "on the honor system" for people to collaborate in using this database.
I can modify somewhat flexibly the structure of the database and the views
that are possible for the database, if people find that changes are
needed -- just let me know. The major restriction is that the database can
only consist of a single table. (The way Quickbase works, only one user can
"own" a database and be able to modify its structure, but you can make a
database accessible to anyone on the internet for modifying information in
the database.)
I encourage people to go ahead and add entries into this database, and
welcome feedback and comments about whether this is the right approach or
not, for building a SUO Glossary.
Sincerely,
Phil Jackson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is
limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 8:36 AM
> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: More Documentation, Please
>
>
> Dear Matthew, and SUO Group in general,
>
> Along the lines that you have proposed below, I think it would
> also be a good idea for the SUO group to collectively,
> iteratively develop a web-based SUO Glossary of specialized
> ontological terminology (e.g. defining phrases like "4D
> Endurantist") including any terms that might be invented and then
> used frequently within SUO correspondence...
>
> One way to do this would be to use www.quickbase.com, to very
> easily set up a database of terms that people could update
> dynamically.... I thnk I could do this very easily -- Do others
> think this is a good idea, and if so, is there another, better
> way that it should be done?
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil Jackson
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is
> limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org]On Behalf Of West,
> > Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> > Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 7:01 AM
> > To: Horn, Graham
> > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org; 'John.Velman@HSC.com';
> > pat hayes; '"Thompson, John A"<John.Thompson@PSS.Boeing.com>'; Niles
> > Teknowledge Ian (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: SUO: More Documentation, Please
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Graham,
> >
> > I think some of the things we need to do is to write down the
> "fundamental
> > principles" of the different metaphysical paradigms which
> different people
> > use. Pat (with interjections from Nicola) has been doing a lot of
> > good work
> > educating us on some of the issues.
> >
> > I'm reasonably comfortable my "notes on the nature of things"
> makes a good
> > start point for doing this for the 4D viewpoint. It would be
> > useful to have
> > something similar for the continuant/occurrent approach (perhaps Pat or
> > Nicola could oblige?) and for the Piercean viewpoint (John?).
> >
> > Regards
> > Matthew
> > ============================================
> > Matthew West
> > Operations & Asset 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: Horn, Graham [mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au]
> > > Sent: 09 February 2001 04:08
> > > To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> > > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org; 'John.Velman@HSC.com';
> > > pat hayes; '"Thompson, John A"<John.Thompson@PSS.Boeing.com>'; Niles
> > > Teknowledge Ian (E-mail)
> > > Subject: RE: SUO: More Documentation, Please
> > >
> > >
> > > Matthew,
> > > . I take it your documentation is aimed
> > > at clearing
> > > this sort of thing up, amongst other things?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers Graham Horn
> > > National Data Standards Unit
> > > Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
> > > ================================================
> > > Phone: 02.6244.1094
> > > Fax: 02.6244.1199
> > > Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au
> <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John.Velman@HSC.com [mailto:John.Velman@HSC.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 12:26 PM
> > > To: pat hayes
> > > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: SUO: More Documentation, Please
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good! The last paragraph provides a test as to whether one
> > > is an endurantist!.
> > >
> > > John V.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>@ieee.org on 02/08/2001 04:54:08 PM
> > >
> > > Please respond to pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> > >
> > > Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > >
> > >
> > > To: "Thompson, John A" <John.Thompson@PSS.Boeing.com>, Ian Niles
> > > <iniles@teknowledge.com>
> > > cc: standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: SUO: More Documentation, Please
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >In a message today, Ian Niles includes many of his documentation
> > > >strings, such as:
> > > >---------------------
> > > > > >(documentation Continuant "A continuant is any entity whose
> > > > > parts are wholly
> > > > > >present whenever it is present.")
> > > >----------------------
> > > >
> > > >And later in the same message he writes:
> > > >---------------------
> > > >These docu-strings are supposed to make the meaning
> > > >of the concepts clear to people who weren't involved in
> > > constructing the
> > > >ontology.
> > > >----------------------
> > > >
> > > >I agree with the stated goal, but I offer all of our current
> > > >documentation strings as evidence that we are nowhere near that goal.
> > > >
> > > >To pick on this one example, a "man on the street" (and most of us)
> > > >would have no idea of what a Continuant is based on this definition.
> > > >Let's see, ...an entity whose parts are wholly present whenever it
> > > >is present. I first strain to think of anything that doesn't fit
> > > >this category.
> > >
> > > Well, an example might be a football match. It has a first half and a
> > > second half, and when one of them is present the other isn't.
> > >
> > > Here are more explanatory docu-strings, but they are more like
> > > mini-essays. Is this the kind of thing you had in mind?
> > >
> > > (documentation Continuant " Intuitively, an object-like thing as
> > > opposed to an event-like thing; something that endures rather than
> > > something that happens. A continuant is thought of as continuing
> > > through time, but at any particular time is all there at that time,
> > > in contrast to something that is thought of as being divided into
> > > stages (contrast "Occurrent"). Examples include normal physical
> > > objects, geographical regions, things like corporations or nations,
> > > and locations of occurrents. The formal definition is that all the
> > > parts of a continuant are present at the same time that the
> > > continuant is; in other words, a continuant cannot have 'parts' which
> > > are separated in time, such as the first and second halves of a
> > > football game.
> > > Note that the parts of a continuant may change from time to time, and
> > > that every continuant occupies exactly the same space and time as an
> > > occurrent (its lifetime).
> > > In a 4-d ontology, a continuant is something whose spatiotemporal
> > > extent is thought of as dividing into spatial parts roughly parallel
> > > to the time-axis.
> > > See Occurrent/Continuant-contrast-note.")
> > >
> > > (documentation Occurrent "Intuitively, an event-like thing as opposed
> > > to an object-type thing; something that happens rather than something
> > > that endures. An occurrent is thought of as having temporal parts or
> > > stages, and it so cannot have all these parts together at one time
> > > (contrast "Continuant"). Examples include extended 'events' such as a
> > > football match or a race, processes of various kinds, states of
> > > motion and lifetimes of continuants, which occupies the same space
> > > and time but is thought of as having stages instead of parts. The
> > > formal definition is: anything that lasts for a time but is not a
> > > continuant.
> > > Note that an occurrent may have participants 'inside' it which are
> > > continuants, such as the players in a football match.
> > > In a 4-d ontology, a continuant is something whose spatiotemporal
> > > extent is thought of as dividing into temporal stages roughly
> > > perpendicular to the time-axis.
> > > See Occurrent/Continuant-contrast-note.")
> > >
> > > > Well, maybe it means something that's not missing any of its parts,
> > > >so a car that's missing its back seat would not be a Continuant (?).
> > > >But what does "wholly present" mean? Does it mean the parts are
> > > >correctly assembled and not just lying in a pile? If my car's back
> > > >set is sitting on the ground beside it, is it wholly present? If
> > > >it's in the same garage, or the same city, or the same state, is it
> > > >wholly present? How close does it have to be to be present?
> > > >
> > > >It turns out that the author is apparently not using the word
> > > >"parts" in any normal sense,
> > >
> > > Ironically, it IS being used in pretty much the normal sense in that
> > > definition of continuant; the sense in which your hand and your liver
> > > are parts of you , but your childhood isn't part of you (its a stage
> > > - temporal part- of your lifetime, in this way of talking.)
> > >
> > > >but probably means it to refer to temporal parts (a completely
> > > >foreign usage to anyone but us). Or does it also refer to physical
> > > >parts at the same time? If a set is an entity, do members of a set
> > > >count as its parts,
> > >
> > > NO! Wash your mouth out with soap!
> > >
> > > >and how can we tell whether they are "present" or not, or whether
> > > >the set itself is present? These are the sorts of questions anyone
> > > >might have when reading this definition.
> > > >
> > > >My recommendation is that we should focus on getting rich
> > > >definitions written for these concepts, so that we can all
> > > >understand them before we go any further. The definitions should
> > > >include all the explanatory text we can create, including
> > > >discussions of where the boundaries of each concept are (i.e., what
> > > >barely fits this definition, and what just misses?). There should
> > > >be plenty of examples of the full range of entities that fit the
> > > >category, and of some that don't, and why not. Perhaps we want a
> > > >second relation like "discussion" where all the issues and subtle
> > > >problems with each concept are stored.
> > >
> > > Yes, Cyc has these extended mini-essays in places, and they are very
> > > useful for giving a kind of survey of a connected bunch of tricky
> > > concepts. For example, Cyc has about seven (ten?) distinct ways that
> > > one thing might 'cover' something else, and without the guide nobody
> > > could possibly follow exactly what they mean. Here's one that might
> > > be useful:
> > >
> > > (documentation Occurrent/Continuant-contrast-note " The question of
> > > deciding whether something is a continuant or an occurrent can be
> > > subtle. Notice it only arises for entities that are located in space
> > > and time: abstract things like sets and numbers are not classified in
> > > either of these ways. (Note in particular that a set of physical
> > > things is not itself physical.) The basic test is to ask whether the
> > > thing in question is best thought of as something that can be said to
> > > be 'happening' or whether one thinks of it as something that endures
> > > for a time and participates in happenings. As an alternative
> > > criterion, consider a time just before the thing in question exists.
> > > Do you think of it as just going to start (occurrent), or as just
> > > going to be created (continuant)?
> > > Many physical things, however, can be thought of as being either a
> > > continuant or an occurrent. Examples include localized processes
> > > forming objects whose identity arises from dynamic equilibrium, such
> > > as a rainstorm, an ocean wave, a flame, a fountain plume, a river or
> > > even a human body. In such cases the ontologist may need to introduce
> > > two kinds of entities, one to express the continuant or enduring
> > > nature and the other the occurrent or process nature of the thing in
> > > question. For example, an ocean wave can be thought of as a moving
> > > continuant which at each moment is manifested by a local occurrent
> > > consisting of the motion of a part of the ocean surface. A
> > > thunderstorm viewed in a satellite image can be seen as a moving
> > > continuant, but seen from one position on the ground may be thought
> > > of as an occurrent (with stages of the sky darkening, rain beginning
> > > to fall, etc.). A similar duality is seen in the contrast between a
> > > motion and the thing moving, and the contrast between a continuant
> > > such as a person and that person's lifetime, which must be thought of
> > > as an occurrent. In general, if one is unsure how to classify some
> > > piece of a complex system, the safest strategy is to treat it as
> > > having both aspects and introduce them both into the ontology, so
> > > that enduring things always have lifetimes during which things happen
> > > to them, and happenings are always happening to something.
> > > In a 4-d ontology there is no sharp contrast between occurrent and
> > > continuant, and the same thing may be spatiotemporally divided up in
> > > several different ways. In particular, a continuant can be identified
> > > with its lifetime. This makes for fewer entities, but requires that
> > > one specify carefully how properties are distributed with respect to
> > > spatiotemporal divisions. One way to view the continuant/occurrrent
> > > contrast is as a crude but useful system for making such
> > > specifications.")
> > >
> > > This last paragraph might be too controversial to be included,
> > > however, as it would ruffle endurantist feathers.
> > >
> > > Pat Hayes
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > IHMC (850)434 8903 home
> > > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> > > Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
> > > phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> > > http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >