Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Graham --
I agree that the use of approximation and stated tolerances for
quantitative measures (which, however, could be zero in an ideal
abstraction) must be an essential part of the SUO. I would be
interested in how you think it should be formalized.
Pat Cassidy
=======================
"Horn, Graham" wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> . Let me suggest a conceptual approach for looking at this,
> and many other problematic areas in development of practical ontologies for
> everyday use.
>
> . The fact is, of course, that the world is quite complicated.
> Naturally there are issues like the longevity of items (3D vs 4D), when
> all physical objects transform over time, not to mention issues like
> timespace etc. Also, there are issues of purity, corrosion, deformation
> form the ideal shape and so forth. And I haven't even touched on more
> esoteric areas like reasoning and motives, etc.
>
> . The nature of human endeavour is evidently that mankind
> makes hypothetical models about the universe that seem to explain
> observations and facilitate planning, etc. We then modify these, generally
> to more complicated models, as shortcomings are found in the earlier ones.
> Of course some, such as Phlogiston being replaced by Oxygen, are abandoned
> as erroneous. Others, such as the geological principles of vulcanism,
> sedimentarianism and metamorphism, are incorporated side by side, once
> recognised as portions of an overarching system rather than the competing
> alternatives they were originally seen to be.
>
> . Furthermore, the earlier and simpler models often provide
> convenient approximations that suit many purposes. Newtonian physics is a
> classic example used by most engineers, even though we know the truer model
> is Einsteinian. Classical chemistry vs nuclear physics vs quantum physics is
> another.
>
> . So, I suggest that the ontology, to be practically useful,
> will need to accommodate approximation.
>
> . I suggest the above little word picture as an initial
> suggestion for a basis for this. I would be happy for it to be modified,
> corrected, etc, by what the group feels makes it more accurate and/or
> practical.
>
> . Again, at the risk of attracting the vehement ire of some
> participants, what do others think?
>
> 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 F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2001 9:43
> To: Chris Partridge
> Cc: Adam Pease; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; West, Matthew R
> SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
> Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
>
> Chris and Adam,
>
> This is another of the very many reasons why the goal of a monolithic
> ontology is hopeless:
>
> > I never suggested - or hoped I did not - that there was a simple single
> > answer to this question. Philosophers will be arguing about this for
> > decades - they have a vested interest in doing so - and one of the
> standard
> > arguments will be that the distinction is misguided. My point is that the
> > issue is well enough understood to recognize some of its important
> > features - one of which is that there are serious problems in having a
> > single consistent way of talking about 3D and 4D - along with a variety of
> > other metaphysical positions. And that deciding on these points is a
> > particularly important aspect of any top ontology.
>
> I believe that there are strong arguments for both sides (and maybe
> there are even more than just 2 options on this and many related
> issues). The lattice of all theories very nicely accommodates
> all of these views; it can show exactly what axioms are common
> to both, and what axioms are contradictory.
>
> All the effort spent in arguing over these issues could have been
> much more profitably spent in making a clean division of the
> axioms for both approaches and giving developers a choice.
>
> John Sowa
--
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
internet: cassidy@micra.com
=============================================