RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Matthew,
At 10:09 AM 8/29/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>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.
Could you explain further what you mean by "don't mind changing the
meaning..."? The only meaning the terms have is from their axioms.
> 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.
Could you explain further here as well? Maybe it's just my 3d bias again
but I don't think of time points as being events that cause anything. If
we need to represent events causing other events then we should be relating
an event and another event, not a timepoint and event.
>But then it wouldn't say the 3D things you probably want it to say as well.
Well, I'd be happy with SUMO + spatioTemporalPart. I think that would
still enable us to state things in a 3d way but also allow 4d expressions.
>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.
no problem. If only we could make the tone of this list more friendly I
think all discussion of this sort would be fun and enlightening. I look
forward to more.
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
>
>
> > -----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
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571