RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience

["West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>]

Dear John,

Just a couple of points.

1. What I like about Nicola's work is that his foundations are explicit
so you can get to say whether you like them or not. I am agnostic about
different 3D ontologies because I think they are infererior for the
kinds of purposes I have in mind. However, like you I think it is
important to accomodate both 3D and 4D views.

2. I looked at the bit in Nicola's paper about coincident objects. He
gives the example of the lump of clay and the vase it constitutes. In
fact a 4D analysis would also see these as two things, because the temporal
extents are different, even though at some stages of the lump of clay
they are coincident. The vase is in effect a temporal part of the piece
of clay. One of the things I particularly like about the 4D approach is
how it deals with the issues of apparently coincident objects.


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: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 20 June 2003 00:32
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; sowa@bestweb.net; Eric Peterson; Mike
> Pool; apease@ks.teknowledge.com; clegg@cyc.com; John 
> DeOliveira; Patrick
> Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience
> 
> 
> Dear Matthew,
> 
> I agree that having well-defined rules is important, but
> those rules also have implications, which can create
> inconsistencies, as we have noticed.
> 
> JS>You have to be very careful with Nicola's DOLCE.  One of his
> >fundamental assumptions is totally inconsistent with Matthew's
> >principle "if two things have the same spatiotemporal extent,
> >they are identical."
> 
> MW> I have no problem mapping to and from multiple coincident objects
> >as long as I know what the rules are and they are consistently 
> >applied. That the rules do not coincide with many peoples intuitions
> >is a different issue.
> 
> Intuitions lead to statements that embody them.  They can be
> stated in formal languages or in natural languages, but sooner
> or later, they generate inconsistencies with other intuitions.
> 
> Although I am in favor of well-defined methodologies, I have
> serious doubts about the desirability of Nicola's identity
> rules.  They solve a problem that exists only in Nicola's
> conceptual model, not in mine or in others that I believe
> are both more widely used and more suitable as a foundation
> for ontology.
> 
> However, I would be willing to allow Nicola's model to
> coexist as an option, but not one that I would recommend.
> 
> John
>