RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Dear Adam,
If you don't mind changing the meaning of the concepts involved
so that they are 4D rather than 3D concepts, then your axioms would
probably work. There are some details, like the date/time attributes
really represent the events that cause the start and end of the
states, but I'm sure we could get there.
But then it wouldn't say the 3D things you probably want it to say as well.
The point is that 3D and 4D concepts are not coincident, even where you
might naturally choose the same name for each. Recall that I had to
translate
you 3D statements into 4D statements before I could answer your question.
Thank you for sticking with this.
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: 27 August 2001 15:41
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
>
>
> Matthew,
> Did you have any further comments on the logical representation I
> presented in my message? That was the actual "meat" of the
> message and
> where I think we have hope of some progress. I may be the eternal
> optimist, but I think I found a solution that supports the 4d
> view that you
> want. I've copied that portion below.
>
> Adam
>
> >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)
> >(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.
>
> At 02:42 PM 8/26/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
> >Dear Adam,
> >
> >See comments below.
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >snip
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I'm referring to Object in its sense in SUMO. The current
> > > hierarchy is
> > >
> > > Entity
> > > Physical
> > > Object
> > > Abstract
> > >
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Do you feel a change is needed to axioms about Physical
> > > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&sk>
> > b=Merge-WordNet&id=95>?
> >
> >MW: Physical is close to the 4D concept of spatio-temporal
> extent. However,
> >a 4D view would be that Physical Entities are parts of space
> time, not
> >located
> >in it. I presume location is meant in some co-ordinate
> sense, which is an
> >abstraction. Before you can have an abstraction, you need to
> have something
> >that forms the basis of abstraction, these are
> spatio-temporal extents,
> >including
> >one which is all of space-time (past, present, and future).
> >
> >MW: Existant has the concept of existing at one or more
> points in time. It
> >is
> >fundamental to a 4D view that existance is for a period of
> time. This is one
> >of the
> >ways in which it differs significantly from a continuant
> based view which
> >the SUMO
> >has built in at a high level.
> >
> >MW: Also, a spatio-temporal extent can be quite arbitrary,
> rather as a set
> >can have
> >arbitrary members.
> >
> >MW: Another problem is that many of the things that you have
> as abstract,
> >like roles,
> >are temporal parts of things in a 4D ontology. I would
> therefore think it
> >was safer
> >to start above physical.
> >
> >MW: There are also problems with the abstract concepts. Our
> classes would be
> >extensional and
> >unchanging. Properties and qualitities would be classes, and
> attributes
> >might be either
> >classes or spatio-temporal extents.
> >
> >MW: I.e. all abstract concepts would be classes/sets.
> >
> >MW: The best bet is to start with Chris M's Basic Set Theory
> and try to
> >build something
> >from there. However, it would be important to have a
> partition and probably
> >a naming
> >convetion so that 4D and 3D concepts can be distinguished.
> >
> >snip
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>