RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Dear Adam,
This looks like somewhere to start from.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 23 August 2001 18:54
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Fwd: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
>
>
> Matthew,
> Ian's just pointed out to me problems with my response.
> SUMO could
> handle a 4d view but only in a trivial way by a knowledge
> engineer putting
> everything he cares about under the notion of Process and
> thereby throwing
> out the existing SUMO notions of identity that work on
> Object. That's not
> a good solution. I can see merit in both 3d and 4d views and
> the challenge
> is how to let them coexist in a meaningful way.
MW: Unfortunately, you need to start probably above object.
4D classes have unchanging extents, for example.
> The good news is that this has driven home to me the
> actual issue, and
> maybe, now that I can state it quite succinctly, we can make real
> progress. I believe the issue can be stated as follows:
>
> Joe has a left arm.
> Joe had a left arm at age 10.
> Joe had a left arm at age 20.
> Is Joe's arm at age 10 the same object as Joe's arm at age 20?
> A 3d view says yes.
> A 4d view says no.
MW: Well yes and no. In the first place 4D is tenseless. A 4D view of
Joe's arm is that it is that spatio-temporal extent that operates
as Joe's arm throughout his life. This allows for the changing
material composition of his arm over time. The whole spatio-temporal
extent is made up of states of those cells/molecules/atoms whilst
they were part of his arm.
MW: So the equivalent question to ask is whether the temporal part of
Joe's arm when he was 10 (this can be a time slice or a period) and
when he was 20 are temporal parts of his whole-life arm.
MW: Then the answer is "yes".
MW: On the other hand, the time slice of his arm at 10 is not the same
object as the time slice of his arm at 20. Notice I am still tenseless.
>
> The practical issue is that each view has merit in different
> situations so
> how do we create a formalism that allows us to express facts
> in either
> viewpoint and yet map between them in a way that doesn't
> result in some
> inconsistency.
>
> Is this an accurate assessment?
MW: This looks about right. 4D needs a tighter set concept, and something
like spatio-temporal-extent as starter objects under the structural and
set theory work of Chris M. 4D classes are different from 3D classes,
but we could construct a superset of equivalent concepts. Processes map
quite simply - they might even be the same object (but I wouldn't want
to assume that yet). Continuants of course do not exist in a 4D
ontology, and we would have to define a mapping to a whole-life
spatio-temporal extent.
MW: A lot of axioms would look somewhat different - mostly simpler
because time is already built in.
>
> Adam
>
>
> >X-Sender: apease@ks.teknowledge.com
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
> >Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:06:49 -0700
> >To: "West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>,
> > "'pat hayes'" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> >From: Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
> >Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
> >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >Sender: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> >Reply-To: Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
> >X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients
> <standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
> >X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
> >X-Moderator-Address:
> standard-upper-ontology-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
> >
> >
> >Matthew,
> > Comments below:
> >
> >At 09:11 AM 8/22/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
> >>Dear Adam,
> >>
> >>Let me collect the critical bits and dump the rest.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >MW: Where did I say it is impossible? I am saying something
> >> > >about our current knowledge, not about what is possible.
> >> >
> >> > Pat has been quite forceful in asserting that we can't
> come up with a
> >> > single consistent ontology. Some other folks have also
> >> > asserted that we
> >> > shouldn't be working on creating a single ontology. Maybe I
> >> > responded too
> >> > strongly as to your position. One message in which you
> appear to say
> >> > this(aggreeing with Pat, my emphasis in '*') is
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >From: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK"
> <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> >> > >
> >> > >MW: However, I don't think I would want to argue for a 4D
> >> > view INSTEAD OF a
> >> > >continuant/occurrent view, or a Piercean view (which I take
> >> > to be different
> >> > >again - subject to correction by John). Rather I think we
> >> > should develop
> >> > >each and relate them to each other, rather than the current
> >> > process of
> >> > >trying to merge them into one.
> >> > >
> >> > >MW: Pat said some time ago that it is probably ***not
> >> > possible*** to merge
> >> > >them,
> >> > >and most of the discussion since has been convincing me he
> >> > is right. Equally
> >> > >people clearly do use different metaphysical paradigms in
> >> > developing various
> >> > >ontologies, and I doubt if that is about to stop, what ever
> >> > we do here, so
> >> > >relating these different paradigms would be a general
> >> > service (and we might
> >> > >learn something).
> >> >
> >>
> >>MW: OK fundamental principles/beliefs first.
> >>
> >>1. We live in a world/universe that is what it is. In theory
> >>it is possible to create a model/ontology that mirrors it.
> >>Therefore a single ontology is possible (theoretically).
> >>
> >>2. Our knowledge of the world is incomplete. In practice we
> >>have a number of different views of the world that are limited
> >>and each is probably useful for particular purposes.
> >>
> >>3. Some of these views are compatible, some are not. E.g. 3D/4D
> >>as above, or wave and particle theories of light.
> >>
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > > > Let's say that we do fail to
> >> > > > come up with a
> >> > > > single consistent ontology, then we'll wind up with a set,
> >> > > > plus a clear
> >> > > > understanding of what the real incompatibilities are.
> >> > >
> >> > >MW: Yes, but the current merging process transforms as well
> >> > >as incorporates the source material. This can both miss and
> >> > >mask incompatilibities.
> >> >
> >> > The position I would take however is that the merging process
> >> > is evaluating
> >> > and then correcting any incompatibilities. If there is
> a specific
> >> > incompatibility in the SUMO proposal (i.e. axioms that allow
> >> > us to deduce
> >> > both P and (not P)) we'd love to have that pointed out.
> >>
> >>MW: But you have not incorporated valid alternative views.
> For example
> >>you have no 4D view of the world in the SUMO. You have selected 3D
> >>and that's it. I don't think you can merge a 4D and 3D view. You can
> >>only have them as alternatives, with perhaps a (partial)
> mapping in between.
> >
> >The definition of Process
> ><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&n
ame=Process&caseSensitive=on&skb=Merge-WordNet>
> >does allow for Object(s)
> ><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&s
> kb=Merge-WordNet&id=51>
> >to be participants in the process. I don't think 3d and 4d are
> >necessarily as incompatible as you assert them to be, but
> let's work it out.
> >
> >Maybe we can work this through concretely. Let's come up with some
> >statements in English and I'll try to formalize them. Then
> we'll have
> >three possible outcomes
> >
> >1. I'll show how they can be modeled with terms from SUMO
> >2. we'll find that there is some error or gap in SUMO and
> we'll add the
> >appropriate definitions
> >3. we'll find that there is a genuine incompatibility
> between the two
> >paradigms that can't be bridged, and we'll define precisely
> the logical
> >forms that are incompatible.
> >
> >>MW: The issue is not so much one of consistency (both P and
> (not P)) as
> >>accuracy
> >>- does the ontology reflect how the world/universe is, and
> over what range
> >>is it a good reflection. 3D and 4D ontologies operate over
> different,
> >>overlapping ranges.
> >>
> >>MW: You could argue that doing this would make them part of
> one ontology,
> >>and I would agree to some degree. However, I think it is
> more useful to
> >>see them as different ontologies with mappings, largely for
> the reasons that
> >>John puts forward.
> >
> >If we really do find that they can't be mapped to each
> other, then I'll be
> >happy to have the outcome that we define two different
> theories that can
> >be plugged into the rest of SUMO.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >>Matthew West
> >>Principal Consultant
> >>Shell Information Technology International Limited
> >>Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >>
> >>Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> >>Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> >>Internet: http://www.shell.com
> >>http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
> >
> >Adam Pease
> >Teknowledge
> >(650) 424-0500 x571
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>