Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Graham and Pat,
I agree with Graham's message as well as Pat's interest in suggestions
for formalization.
Adam
At 11:07 PM 8/27/2001 -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>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
>=============================================
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571