RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Dear Graham,
> MW: Interestingly, 4D is simpler as well as more accurate.
> However, it cuts
> across some linguistic based intuitions.
>
> GH> But they also complicate the thinking one has to do, often for
> insignificant effects. Eg. What is the reliability difference
> between a 2
> year old car and one 5 years old? Often not much.
MW: I think you misunderstand. A 4D ontology says that any car
has a spatio-temporal extent. It does not require that you know
or care about the start and end of that extent. So I can talk
about Sir Winston Churchill without knowing of his date of birth.
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: Horn, Graham [mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au]
> Sent: 29 August 2001 09:45
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'mail@ChrisPartridge.net';
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Cc: 'John F. Sowa'; Adam Pease; 'pat hayes'
> Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
>
>
> Hi Matthew,
> . I only found one comment to respond to.
>
> . Further comments interspersed below, prefaced
> "GH> ".
>
>
>
> 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: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 August 2001 18:09
> To: Horn, Graham; 'mail@ChrisPartridge.net';
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Cc: 'John F. Sowa'; Adam Pease; 'pat hayes'
> Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
>
> Dear Graham,
>
> 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
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Horn, Graham [mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au]
> > Sent: 28 August 2001 09:43
> > To: 'mail@ChrisPartridge.net'; Horn, Graham;
> > standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Cc: 'John F. Sowa'; Adam Pease; West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat
> > hayes'
> > Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> > . Actually, I am [proposing that we accommodate
> > both, and use
> > the simpler one when we don't need the extra accuracy. That's
> > what people do
> > all the time.
>
> MW: Interestingly, 4D is simpler as well as more accurate.
> However, it cuts
> across some linguistic based intuitions.
>
> GH> But they also complicate the thinking one has to do, often for
> insignificant effects. Eg. What is the reliability difference
> between a 2
> year old car and one 5 years old? Often not much.
> >
> > . Perhaps we need criteria, or inflections, to specify or
> > indicate which mode is being used when - I haven't thought about it.
> > Otherwise, who wants to know a house is 3 or 14 years old,
> > for example? Most
> > of the time it can be treated as a permanent fixture. But one
> > probably needs
> > to know when planning to renovate.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: Chris Partridge [mailto:chris_partridge@csi.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2001 18:21
> > To: graham.horn@aihw.gov.au; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Cc: 'John F. Sowa'; Adam Pease; West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat
> > hayes'
> > Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
> >
> > Graham,
> >
> > I entirely agree - but I reckon the point I am making is
> orthogonal to
> > yours.
> > I am claiming (or repeating the claims put forward by others)
> > that when we
> > build our picture of the world we do this on the basis of
> metaphysical
> > assumptions - which are not really amenable to empirical
> > verification. There
> > are some areas where we know that there are metaphysical
> > choices - 3D and 4D
> > is an example - and once we have made the choice this infects
> > our whole
> > outlook.
> >
> > I am merely suggesting that it makes sense to document the
> > choice we make
> > and try and apply it consistently. I suspect that if we try
> > and have our
> > cake and eat it (stuff both 3D and 4D into the same -
> > monolithic - ontology)
> > that we will get a mess. This is an engineering problem - not rocket
> > science. Though if you want rocket science, you can use it in
> > developing
> > either the 3D or the 4D view.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: graham.horn@aihw.gov.au [mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au]
> > Sent: 28 August 2001 03:34
> > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Cc: 'John F. Sowa'; Chris Partridge; Adam Pease; West, Matthew R
> > SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
> > Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
> >
> >
> > 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
>