SUO: RE: RE: Axiom and Intentionality vs Extentionality
Dear Roberto,
I could not put it better myself!
And technology, in particular, is not the sole culprit. Anything that
associatively relates to groups and so on.... will do that.
Edward Dawidowicz
US Army, CECOM, RDEC
Command and Control Directorate
Tel: (732) 427-4122 DSN 987-4122
Fax (732) 427-3440
E-Mail edward.dawidowicz@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
-----Original Message-----
From: roberto bordogna [mailto:bordogna@tin.it]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:15 PM
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; Dawidowicz, Edward CECOM RDEC C2D
Subject: SUO: RE: Axiom and Intentionality vs Extentionality
Dear Edward, your note is really interesting.
In fact it stress that different self-organizations, at any given time,
may arise or should be considered accordingly to specific goals and
context.
It may be interesting to note that technology may creates new types of
relationships and/or "organizations", ranging from local to global ones .
In fact the drivers' community may be assisted with information ranging
from GPS, to artificial vision system and global satellite multimedia
communications - beginning with radio broadcasting - that may influence
the behavior of the whole motor pool drivers of the world.
All the best. Roberto
>
> > Instance 1 - a car (the driver is the head of the organization)
> > Instance 2 - several cars on the freeway(say a few cars which surround
our
> > driver)
> > Instance 3 - a multitude of cars within a 300 meter radius.
> > Instance n - the motor pool of the world.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dawidowicz, Edward CECOM RDEC C2D"
> <Edward.Dawidowicz@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
> To: "'roberto bordogna'" <bordogna@tin.it>
> Sent: 06.novembre.2001 18.55
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Axiom and Intentionality vs Extentionality
>
>
> > Dear Roberto,
> >
> > I can't agree with you more. In the earlier e-mail I had the desire to
> > elaborate but somehow anticipated your response. Please analyze a few
> lines
> > below and let me know what do you think.
> >
> > Organization
> > Instance 1 - a car (the driver is the head of the organization)
> > Instance 2 - several cars on the freeway(say a few cars which surround
our
> > driver)
> > Instance 3 - a multitude of cars within a 300 meter radius.
> > Instance n - the motor pool of the world.
> >
> > What do you think about?
> >
> > I will leave out of our conversation the stuff like " good example of
this
> > kind of organization is when several drivers are driving in the fog in a
> > lane. The first has a job as leader that
> > is different from the fellows driver that follow him. This is a case of
> weak
> > organization or of self-organization that by the way generally emerge
> more
> > clearly in emergency. This kind of self organization between peers are
> very
> > interesting because tend to be pretty resilient".
> > It is indeed very interesting, but it is a concept which I would like
to
> > discuss a little bit later.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Edward
> >
> > US Army, CECOM, RDEC
> > Command and Control Directorate
> > Tel: (732) 427-4122 DSN 987-4122
> > Fax (732) 427-3440
> > E-Mail edward.dawidowicz@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: roberto bordogna [mailto:bordogna@tin.it]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:22 PM
> > To: Dawidowicz, Edward CECOM RDEC C2D; Ian Niles;
> > standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Axiom and Intentionality vs Extentionality
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Edward Dawidowicz, thanks for the comment.
> >
> > Actually a driver appear to be part of one organization even if it is
not
> > employed by anybody. He is part of the "organization" created locally by
> > other drivers. A good example of this kind of organization is when
several
> > drivers are driving in the fog in a lane. The first has a job as leader
> that
> > is different from the fellows driver that follow him. This is a case of
> weak
> > organization or of self-organization that by the way generally emerge
> more
> > clearly in emergency. This kind of self.organization between peers are
> very
> > interesting because tend to be pretty resilient.
> >
> > All the best. Roberto Bordogna.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dawidowicz, Edward CECOM RDEC C2D"
> > <Edward.Dawidowicz@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
> > To: "'roberto bordogna'" <bordogna@tin.it>; "Ian Niles"
> > <iniles@teknowledge.com>; <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> > Sent: 06.novembre.2001 15.06
> > Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Axiom and Intentionality vs Extentionality
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Roberto and Ian,
> > >
> > > Good idea and...
> > >
> > > Below, Roberto had made a good suggestion to Ian.
> > > Roberto brought up "In fact a person as a real actor is member of
> several
> > > organization at the same times (for instance is a family man, a
driver,
> an
> > > employee and so on...). All these organizations influence the actor
> > behavior
> > > together, but on a contingency base."
> > >
> > > What is interesting however is that the word "driver" contextually
does
> > not
> > > fit in OrganizationFn unless he is employed by an organization as
> driver.
> > A
> > > vehicle, if he drives one, in not an organization.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > Edward Dawidowicz
> > >
> > > US Army, CECOM, RDEC
> > > Command and Control Directorate
> > > Tel: (732) 427-4122 DSN 987-4122
> > > Fax (732) 427-3440
> > > E-Mail edward.dawidowicz@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: roberto bordogna [mailto:bordogna@tin.it]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 7:01 AM
> > > To: Ian Niles; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Axiom and Intentionality vs Extentionality
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ian Niles" <iniles@teknowledge.com>
> > > We could remove the concept of
> > >
> > > ... 'Organization' from the SUMO all together and then define a
> function,
> > > called
> > > > "OrganizationFn", say, that takes an 'OrganizationUnit' and a
> > > 'TimePosition'
> > > > as arguments and then returns a 'Collection' as its value, where the
> > > > 'Collection' returned would be the 'members', if any, associated
with
> > the
> > > > 'OrganizationUnit'. In cases where the 'OrganizationUnit' had no
> > > > corresponding 'members', the 'NullSet' would be returned. What do
you
> > > > think? What do other people think of this idea?
> > >
> > > Ian, it appears a very good Idea,at least to me. I would add a context
> > > argument too to the function.
> > >
> > > In fact a person as a real actor is member of several organization at
> the
> > > same times (for instance is a family man, a driver, an employee and so
> > > on...). All these organizations influence the actor behavior together,
> > but
> > > on a contingency base.
> > >
> > > Actually this idea to define an Entity dynamically seems very
promising
> > and
> > > of general use, also for artificial agents.
> > >
> > > In fact in this way it might be possible to contingency select a
> > > particular ontology "module" dynamically, at any given time for
instance
> > > accordingly to some kind of context or field inputs.
> > >
> > > Regards.
> > >
> > > Roberto Bordogna.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>