RE: SUO: Re: Axiom & Intensionality vs Extensionality
I must admit I'm still a little puzzled here, though I read it the same way
as Adam put it (thanks to the hint subrelation
connectsEngineeringComponents - "this greasy bit of wire here connects these
two lumps of rust").
OBJ1 = A, OBJ2 = B, OBJ3 = C, and the connection being adjacency, we have
BAC, with A as the connecting bridge.
What puzzles me is that if in this example we included a second dimension :
A
B C
this still has A connecting B and C, but here we have connected(B, C), which
surely must preclude 'connects' because of "not (&%connected ?OBJ2 ?OBJ3)"
?????
Cheers,
Danny.
---
Danny Ayers
http://www.isacat.net
Alternate email (2001) :
danny666@virgilio.it
danny_ayers@yahoo.co.uk
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
>Adam Pease
>Sent: 03 November 2001 22:46
>To: Jean-Marc Orliaguet; Jon Awbrey
>Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail); West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
>Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Axiom & Intensionality vs Extensionality
>
>
>
>Jean-Marc,
> There may be a misunderstanding simply due to the relation name. Think
>of it as 'directlyConnected'. The Golden Gate bridge connects San
>Francisco and Marin. Marin and San Francisco are not directly
>connected. Or a more European example would be that the Chunnel connects
>France and Britain. France and Britain are not directly connected. One
>could of course decompose this into a set of binary relations
>
>(connects1 France C1)
>(connects2 Chunnel C1)
>(connects3 Britain C1)
>
>That requires reifying a relation instance symbol, 'C1', which, along with
>the increase from one statement to three and the proliferation of relation
>variants are factors that bias some of us towards the ternary relation.
>
>Adam
>
>
>Adam
>
>At 09:35 PM 11/3/2001 +0100, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
>>
>>I don't understand the following definition:
>><http://128.136.11.33:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&skb=Merge&id=448>
>http://128.136.11.33:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&skb=Merge&id=448
>>
>>
>>(Documentation connects "The relationship between three things, when one
>>of the three things connects the other two. More formally, (&%connects
>>?OBJ1 ?OBJ2 ?OBJ3) means that (&%connected ?OBJ1 ?OBJ2) and (&%connected
>>?OBJ1 ?OBJ3) and not (&%connected ?OBJ2 ?OBJ3).")
>>
>>Why, if OBJ1 connects OBJ2 and OBJ3, should OBJ2 and OBJ3 not be
>>connected? (since OBJ1 connects them, isn't that contradictory?)
>>
>>Does the following represent one relation between three things? : OBJ2
>>----- OBJ1 ---- OBJ3
>>I see two relations.
>>
>>JM
>>
>>
>>Jon Awbrey wrote:
>>>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>>>
>>>One of the biggest threats to the viability of this project
>>>continues to be people who propose to standardize without
>>>recognizing the standard languages and terminologies
>>>that are already in place.
>>>
>>>There is a way that everybody can have their own favorite usage
>>>and still relate it to the usages of other interpreters, and that
>>>would be to open up a sign-relational context for inter-com, but
>>>so far that possibility is being ignored and so we have to go back
>>>and do it the old way, which is start up a knock-down drag-out fight
>>>until one usage or the other emerges victorious. I am sorry it has
>>>to be that way, but it's not me who picked the method. I am here
>>>to inform you that the battle is already lost over the usage of
>>>words like "class", "collection", "set", and so on, and so you
>>>might as well just get used to it.
>>>
>>>You basically only get two choices:
>>>
>>>1. You can say that you are using the words "class", "collection", "set"
>>> in their everyday, informal, ordinary senses -- in which case these
>>> three words are now and always will be synonyms.
>>>
>>>2. You say that you are using the words with the technical senses that
>>> they are commonly given in logic and mathematics -- in which case
>>> there is a distinction made between "class" and "set", while the
>>> word "collection" is now and ever will be a floater between them.
>>>
>>>Jon Awbrey
>>>
>>>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>>>
>>>West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Dear Ian, David, and Pat,
>>> >
>>> > Pat was asking for an example of when a 4D approach
>>> > can be helpful. This might be such a case.
>>> >
>>> > 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>http://www.shell.com
>>> >
>>> > > > I was looking at the SUMO browser at:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>>
><http://128.136.11.33:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SA&skb=Merge&id=260>h
>ttp://128.136.11.33:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SA&skb=Merge&id=260
>>>
>>> > > >
>>> > > > where the axiom:
>>> > > > Formula
>>> > > > (=>
>>> > > > (instance ?COLL Collection)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > (exists
>>> > > > (?OBJ)
>>> > > > (member ?OBJ ?COLL) ) )
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Now, as I read this, if a collection exists, it MUST have
>a member.
>>> > > > I understand that the SUMO semantics for member and
>Collection are:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > (documentation member "A specialized common sense notion of
>>> > > > part for uniform
>>> > > > parts of &%Collections. For example, each sheep in a flock of
>>> > > > sheep would
>>> > > > have the relationship of member to the flock.")
>>> >
>>> > MW: So member is supposed to be a relation like part, but relates
>>> > members to classes (see below).
>>> >
>>> > MW: The problem with this is that member is non-transitive, but part
>>> > is transitive. I therefore declare an inconsistency (member is both
>>> > transitive and non-transitive).
>>> >
>>> > MW: Lets see if we can understand how it should be.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > (documentation Collection "Collections have &%members like
>>> > > > &%Classes, but,
>>> > > > unlike &%Classes, they have a position in space-time and
>>> > > > &%members can be
>>> > > > added and subtracted without thereby changing the identity of the
>>> > > > &%Collection. Some examples are toolkits, football teams, and
>>> > > > flocks of
>>> > > > sheep.")
>>> >
>>> > MW: Well this sounds like Collections are spatio-temporal extents,
>>> > since that's what it is to have a position in space time. Spatio-
>>> > temporal extents are individuals (the terms are synonyms for me).
>>> > Individuals are not classes.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Now, it seems to me that this axiom requires a collection
>to have an
>>> > > > instance.
>>> > >
>>> > > That's right, and this is as it should be, I think, since
>>> > > collections are
>>> > > supposed to be situated in space/time and this wouldn't be
>>> > > possible for a
>>> > > collection that had no members.
>>> >
>>> > MW: Well this is another indication that collections are individuals,
>>> > and that we are talking abotu mereology not set theory. Mereology
>>> > has many similarities to set theory, but there are a couple of key
>>> > differences:
>>> >
>>> > a) Mereology has no equivalent of membership (whole-part is
>>> > transitive like sub-type/supertype).
>>> > b) Mereology has no zero (as your intuition above tells you).
>>> >
>>> > MW: I want to be clear here, there is a set that has as members the
>>> > sheep that are parts of the flock, but this is an abstract object,
>>> > and does not have a position in space and time (though of course
>>> > each member does).
>>> >
>>> > MW: The secret is to understand which you are talking about.
>>> > Apparently here Ian is talking about spatio-temporal extents, and
>>> > not classes, despite the language he uses.
>>> >
>>> > no further comments.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Maybe I'm being obscure, but I would hope that this doesn't
>>> > > > say that there
>>> > > > are no such things as intentional collections in the SUMO
>ontology.
>>> > >
>>> > > I think you need to spell out what you mean by an intensional
>>> > > collection.
>>> > > Note that, in the usage of analytic philosophers, the term is
>>> > > spelled with
>>> > > an "s" when it's opposed to "extensional".
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I don't know how many left-handed leprechauns that play
>>> > > > trombone exist, but
>>> > > > I would think that I should be able to express in SUMO the
>>> > > > collection of them
>>> > > > without wandering around looking for a pot of gold to give
>>> > > > the guardian a
>>> > > > survey (to see if he/she is one) first.
>>> > >
>>> > > Well, we can, within the framework of the SUMO, create the
>*class* of
>>> > > left-handed leprechaus that play trombone, since this is a
>meaningful
>>> > > concept. Why do you think we should also be able to create a
>>> > > collection
>>> > > corresponding to this class? If you think this should be
>>> > > possible, you need
>>> > > to spell out what your notion of *collection* is and you need
>>> > > to show how it
>>> > > is distinguished from the SUMO concepts of class and collection.
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > David Whitten (713) 791-1414 ext 6116
>>>
>>>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>>
>>--
>>Jean-Marc Orliaguet ( jmo@medialab.chalmers.se )
>>-
>><http://www.medialab.chalmers.se/people/jmo/>http://www.medialab.c
halmers.se/people/jmo/
>
>- Tel: +46 31 772 8581
>
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571