RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Pat,
I agree with you that a function that maps things to their temporal
subparts would be better than reifying the temporal subpart. Thanks also
for the reference. I've ordered a copy.
Since creating a temporal subpart doesn't actually conflict with any
axiom in SUMO I don't see the problem that you're pointing out below. The
approach is different in some broad sense but if it doesn't cause an actual
problem with specific inferences I don't think it's a problem in
practice. And the change I'm proposing does have, at least on the surface,
a benefit of allowing both the 3d and 4d enthusiasts to model things as
they wish in SUMO.
Adam
At 05:23 PM 8/27/2001 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>Do you feel a change is needed to axioms about Physical
>><<http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&skb=Merge-WordNet&id=95>http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&skb=Merge-WordNet&id=95>?
>>
>
>
> (documentation Physical "An entity that has a location in space-time.
> Note that points of space and time are themselves understood to have a
>location in space-time")
>
>Can someone elucidate this second sentence? For example, consider the
>north pole, which we can take to be a point in space. Does that point
>have a time? Rotating the axes, does a timepoint (eg 3:02 pm PDT on 21
>August 2001) have a spatial location? Or is this supposed to be saying
>that *spatiotemporal* points are spatiotemporally located? (Note, time
>points and space points are not spatiotemporal points: they are
>respectively 3-d slices and 1-d timelines in a 4-d ontology.)
>
>>> > 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.
>>
>>If I understand you correctly, then you may be closer to the current SUMO
>>representation than I thought. Here's a formalization in SUMO:
>>
>>(instance JoesArm OrganicObject)
>>(instance JoesArmAtAge10 OrganicObject)
>>(instance JoesArmAtAge20 OrganicObject)
>
>This is wrong in the endurantist framework, which would reject
>JoesArmAtAge10 as a meaningful object (it doesn't endure).
>
>>(spatioTemporalPart JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArm)
>>(spatioTemporalPart JoesArmAtAge20 JoesArm)
>>(equal (BeginFn JoesArmAtAge10) (BeginFn (YearFn 1990)))
>>(equal (EndFn JoesArmAtAge10) (EndFn (YearFn 1990)))
>>(equal (BeginFn JoesArmAtAge20) (BeginFn (YearFn 2000)))
>>(equal (EndFn JoesArmAtAge20) (EndFn (YearFn 2000)))
>>
>>The key then is in the definition of a new relation for SUMO which we
>>could call 'spatioTemporalPart' which would allow us to deduce
>>
>>(not (equal JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArmAtAge20))
>>
>>Now, at the danger of pointing out a flaw in this, we'd have to assume
>>that no one who wants to use a 3d viewpoint would ever want to reify
>>temporal sub-parts. Because from the above formalization, they'd want to
>>conclude
>>
>>(equal JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArmAtAge20)
>>
>>I'm hoping though that this might be an acceptable compromise in terms of
>>practical modelling support.
>
>Congratulations, you have just reinvented the 4-d ontology. At least, I
>think you have. Notice that all these are timeless assertions, as Matthew
>requires, but which would be meaningless in an endurantist (3-d)
>framework. So is SUMO solidly tense-free, and rejects all talk of
>'ordinary' objects as lasting through time, retaining their identity as
>they last? What other relations hold between JoesArm and JoesArmAtAge10?
>
>BTW, don't you think it might be better to introduce an interval-slicing
>function, so you can write
>(At JoesArm (YearFn 1990)) rather than JoesArmAtAge10, which has no more
>relationship to JoesArm than to Xyyzz as far as the logic is concerned?
>Then you could *quantify* over timeslices of things, which is very handy,
>eg you could write
>(equal (BeginFn (At ?x?y)) (BeginFn ?y))
>which kind of sums up a lot of stuff. See "Naive Physics I: Liquids" in
>J.R. Hobbs and R.C. Moore (Eds.) Formal Theories of the Common Sense
>World (Vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company, 1985 for some more
>examples.
>
>Pat
>
>>Adam
>>
>>> >
>>> > 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>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>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.shell.com
>>> > >>http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
>>> > >
>>> > >Adam Pease
>>> > >Teknowledge
>>> > >(650) 424-0500 x571
>>> >
>>> > Adam Pease
>>> > Teknowledge
>>> > (650) 424-0500 x571
>>> >
>>
>>Adam Pease
>>Teknowledge
>>(650) 424-0500 x571
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>(650)859 6569 w
>(650)494 3973 h (until September)
>phayes@ai.uwf.edu
><http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes>http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
></blockquote></x-html>
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571