SUO: Re: RE: Logic and Ontology
From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> You have only shifted the problem. So now what is the meaning
> of hasState with respect to the tuple <mycar, red>? Is it the
> same as the meaning of instance with respect to the tuple
> <mycar, redThings>? And is that meaning set membership?
I guess I don't have a clue what this philosophical broo-ha-ha is about. It
seems to me that something having a property just means that there is some
binary function that returns 'True' if the property obtains for the thing.
In a computer this binary function would be implemented by a program that
could be run at any particular time on any particular object (in the correct
domain) and would return a true\false result value. Being a member of a set
is a mathematicians way of conceptualizing the same process. The two
different views (and I agree that they are different) could be related by
some formula .. say:
(<=> (red ?x) (instance ?x RedThings) )
I made a somewhat more detailed picture of this in the mentograph:
http://robustai.net/mentography/property_or_instance.gif
What am I missing? What is the underlying ambiguity that has not been
exposed here?
Seth Russell
----in response to ---
> 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: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> > Sent: 05 March 2002 17:56
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: Logic and Ontology
> >
> >
> > Ok, I think I see what you mean. But we could have chosen
> > different KIF
> > predicates:
> >
> > (hasState mycar red)
> > or from the other perspective
> > (instance mycar RedThings)
> > and or if time is a problem
> > (hasStateTimed mycar red 'March5:12:02AM')
> > (instanceTimed mycar RedThings 'March3:12:03AM')
> >
> > So isn't the problem with the precision of the predicate we
> > choose to use
> > and not with KIF predication itself? (Sorry I didn't take
> > the time to look
> > up actual sumo predicates.)
> >
> > Seth Russell
> >
> > ----- in response to -----
> > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> >
> >
> > > Dear Seth,
> > >
> > > I am loath to try to descibe other peoples view of the world. You
> > > almost innevitably misrepresent them. Still subject to correction
> > > here goes.
> > >
> > > If you have what I would call a "property" view rather than a "set"
> > > view then you think that the properties that a thing has change
> > > over time, and that the things that have the property have changing
> > > membership. These properties therefore can't be sets (whose
> > membership
> > > does not change) so when you say:
> > >
> > > (red mycar)
> > >
> > > you are not asserting set membership but something else.
> > Whatever that
> > > is is what predicate means for those with that viewpoint.
> > >
> > > As a cross reference the 4D viewpoint would say that a state of the
> > > car was red, and that red was the set of all states that were red,
> > > past, present and future, so the membership is unchanging, actually
> > > time is taken out of the equation, and red really is a set.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> > > > Sent: 05 March 2002 16:54
> > > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > Subject: Re: Logic and Ontology
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> > > >
> > > > > The bottom line here as far as I can see is that without stating
> > > > > a particular meaning for predication, KIF is ambiguous.
> > Or perhaps
> > > > > I should say that when you use KIF, you need to state
> > the meaning
> > > > > of predication you are using.
> > > >
> > > > Could you provide us with a tangible example giving differing
> > > > meanings of
> > > > predication?
> > > >
> > > > Seth Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>