RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.

["Horn, Graham" <graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>]

Dear Matthew, 
	.		Perhaps you're right. 

	.	Does this mean one can treat something as though it were 3­D
for some purposes, especially short term ones, when it is really 4­D, the
way we often do for convenience?  



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 22:24
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,

> 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
>