SUO: Re: Evaluation Framework for Content Standards
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
there is also a 10-dimensional JS and a 26-dimensional JS and
an infinite-dimensional complex-number-valued hilbert space JS
and ...
ja
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Chris Angus wrote:
>
> Matthew
>
> You state: "The problem is that there is not one John Sowa,
> but a 3D John Sowa and a 4D John Sowa, not one that is both
> 3D and 4D, so you need something that relates them and says
> they are equivalent.".
>
> It seems to me that this is a confusing statement (at least to my small
> brain) because it is not clear what the objects of your statement are from
> the statement itself. Your later statement "Viz they are theories of the
> same phenomena" provides some clarification. One could argue that "there
> is one John Sowa" (the "phenomena" in the real world) without having to
> agree to "one that is both 3D and 4D" (theories of the world).
>
> Regards
> Chris Angus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Fowler, Julian
> Sent: 18 June 2003 14:45
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; John F. Sowa; Chris Partridge;
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Evaluation Framework for Content Standards
>
> Matthew et al,
>
> See comments prefixed JPF> below.
>
> regards
> Julian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:matthew.west@shell.com]
> Sent: 2003-06-18 14:27
> To: Fowler, Julian; John F. Sowa; Chris Partridge;
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Evaluation Framework for Content Standards
>
> Dear Julian,
>
> Nice to hear from you.
>
> 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.west@shell.com
> Internet: http://www.shell.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fowler, Julian [mailto:JFowler@modulant.com]
> > Sent: 18 June 2003 13:43
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; John F. Sowa; Chris Partridge;
> > standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Evaluation Framework for Content Standards
> >
> >
> > Matthew et al
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > ... in response to John Sowa's comment suggestion:
> >
> > > Some of these implications will be handled automatically if
> > > Person4D and Person3D are both defined as subtypes of Person.
> > > Any properties that are independent of the 3D/4D distinction
> > > would be defined for the type Person, and they would therefore
> > > apply equally well to the same person under either description.
> >
> > MW: The problem is that there is not one John Sowa, but a 3D
> > John Sowa and a 4D John Sowa, not one that is both 3D and 4D, so
> > you need something that relates them and says they are equivalent.
> >
> > I take it that John's proposal *is* predicated on the
> > assumption that there is (in the real world) one John Sowa,
> > who can be identified and described from multiple
> > perspectives (e.g., using a 3D ontology or a 4D ontology). I
> > think that its important here to separate two components
> > within the lattice of theories:
> >
> > 1. When seeking a capability to accommodate different
> > ontologies within a common framework, we have to seek out
> > concepts that are common across these different perspectives.
> > In this example, the common_person_concept is necessarily an
> > abstraction that shares some of the intent of both
> > 3d_person_concept and 4d_person_concept.
>
> MW: The problem is that 3D and 4D concepts of John share as much
> as wave and particle theories of light.
>
> JPF> Agreed, but in your wording "of John" you imply that there is some
> thing that can be the subject of a 3D concept and a 4D concept.
>
> MW: Viz they are theories of
> the same phenomena.
>
> JPF> Again "the same phenomena" implies that there is something that allows
> the two concepts to be related.
>
> > We need to be able
> > to assert some minimum level of equivalence/correspondence,
>
> MW: Yes.
>
> > through abstraction,
>
> MW: No. You can create a union of 4D person concepts and 3D
> person concepts, but there is still a 3D John object and a 4D
> John object, and the need for some equivalence between them.
>
> JPF> I understand what you're saying here, Matthew, but I think that we need
> to be able to describe this in a more comprehensible fashion, if we are to
> achieve something that is applicable to solve real world problems. Maybe we
> can argue about the terms later, but can agree for now that in order to
> achieve communication across some paradigm boundary it is necessary, within
> some framework that spans the paradigms to establish what is equivalent and
> what is different within the different views, and to formalize those
> equivalences and differences.
>
> > if we are to have any hope of success
> > then the ability to define a deterministic method by which I
> > can communicate facts from a 3d world view to a 4d world
> > view. Otherwise we might as well start on defining multiple
> > point-to-point mappings between ontologies.
>
> MW: If we cannot find a theory that subsumes both 3D and 4D, or
> find that one subsumes the other, then yes we will have to do
> point to point mappings.
>
> JPF> Thanks, that *really* cheers me up :-)
>
> >
> > Therefore, within the lattice, there must be relationships
> > between 3d_person_concept and common_person_concept and
> > between 4d_person_concept and common_person_concept ... we
> > shouldn't assume, though, that these relationships are
> > necessarily supertype/subtype.
>
> MW: I'm not quite sure what you are proposing here. See my
> previous remark.
>
> JPF> What I'm finding it difficult to accept is the idea that two world
> views can exist, both of which presume to provide insight into observable
> phenomena, but which are so irreconcilable (and, apparently, non-intuitive)
> that we cannot construct an abstraction that allows negotiation between the
> 3d_person_concept and the 4d_person_concept -- unless, of course, the word
> "person" here is being used in a counter-intuitive sense that excludes both
> my observation of an individual person or my understanding of the class of
> persons. In which case, we're taking about some 3d_foo_concept and some
> 4d_foo_concept.
>
> JPF> My comment about subtype/supertype here was to point out that the
> relationships between more-specific view concepts (3d, 4d) and more-abstract
> view concepts (common) need not be subclass/superclass in all cases.
>
> > 2. In addition to such relationships that deal with concepts,
> > we need to (separately) address how these concepts are
> > represented in these different world views. Coming back to
> > the process/event discussion, the distinct viewpoints there
> > could be addressed by having a common_event concept that can
> > accommodate both views, and also have necessary
> > relations/constraints that define the necessary and/or
> > preferred representations of these concepts in their
> > respective views. Therefore, the determination of whether a
> > common_event has location in space and/or time is distinct
> > from the determination of whether it is necessary to know the
> > spatial or temporal location of a specific event.
>
> MW; This is an important distinction.
>
> > This would
> > help to avoid recourse to optional/default relationships at
> > an SUO level, which I see as an unhelpful mixture of ontology
> > and data modeling.
>
> MW: Quite.
> >
> > regards
> > Julian
> >
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o