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.
Do you mean, you don't understand it because SUMO doesn't have an
conflict? What I don't understand is how you are going to explain to
a potential user of SUMO what a 'physical object' is. An ontology
isn't just a set of axioms: it is also a perspective on how to extend
and utilise those axioms to create other, new, axioms. Users need to
be able to understand what the overall perspective is, so you need to
be able to say what it is.
>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.
It doesn't allow the endurantists (3-d enthusiasts) to model things
as THEY wish. See my earlier message for details.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes