RE: SUO: More Documentation, Please
Dear Matthew,
I would be glad to set up the quickbase database. Once it gets going it
should be largely something that is "self-maintaining", in the sense that
everyone in SUO would be able to collaborate on editing it, to whatever
extent each SUOer wishes. To be clear, I do not want to get into a role of
being the arbiter of definitions.
Regards,
Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is
limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:50 AM
> To: Philip Jackson
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: More Documentation, Please
>
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> This looks like a good idea. Do I take it you are offering to take
> maintaining this on as a task?
>
> 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: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> > Sent: 10 February 2001 13:36
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >