RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Hi Matthew,
. Thanks for the answer. I am trying to tease out, and
get a grip on, just what is required to handle a 4D defined object in a 3D
way, as though it were unchanging for the purposes of a given activity. Is
it simply a case of not addressing the 4th dimension of the object, and so
just treating it as though 3D, or what?
. I fully realise the greater power of 4D, and agree with its
benefits where relevant. My concern is the possibility of imposing
operational burdens on the handling of 4D objects on the many occasions
many of them effectively behave as 3D objects.
. If it's truly as simple as when they are defined as 3D,
then naturally my concern is of no account. If not, then one needs to know
the extent of burden imposed. If the burden is too great, then I tend to
feel there is merit in the way ordinary people do it, that is to say, by
sometimes treating them as 3D, and other times treating them as 4D.
. Sorry for my ignorance, but I haven't come across "CISC".
Does it mean "Comprehensive ......."?
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 22:51
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,
No you do not sometimes need to say things 3D and sometimes 4D. Even when
you do not specfiy when the start of an extent is for a 4D object, it still
has one (and has to have one) - it just isn't known.
4D actually allows you to say more and less than 3D, as you require. It
might help to think of it as a RISC rather than CISC instruction set. In 4D
you tend to get more, simpler statements.
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 13:30
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 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 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
> >
>