RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Matthew,
I think there is a misunderstanding here.
As you say - "MW: Well trying to stuff both into one merged ontology would
be a mistake."
I also think that when one actually applies/implements the lattice of
theories for a particular domain, you will have two possible different
views - rather than one consolidated (monolithic) view. And it will be quite
clear which view is using which metaphysical assumptions - and these
assumptions will be applied consistently.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
Sent: 29 August 2001 10:09
To: mail@ChrisPartridge.net; graham.horn@aihw.gov.au;
standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Cc: 'John F. Sowa'; Adam Pease; 'pat hayes'
Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Dear Chris,
I don't agree with you here. See 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: Chris Partridge [mailto:chris_partridge@csi.com]
> Sent: 28 August 2001 09:21
> 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.
MW: I would agree that it is important not to mix up 3D and 4D, but not
that we have to choose.
>
> 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.
MW: Well trying to stuff both into one merged ontology would be a mistake.
On the other hand I think that a modular ontology with a 4D and 3D
components, with a mapping in between is one of the most useful things we
could do. You would be able to use either - depending on the problem,
and translate between them when needed.
>
> 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
>