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

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

Dear Pierluigi,

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: Pierluigi Miraglia [mailto:miraglia@cyc.com]
> Sent: 20 June 2003 18:06
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: 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
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:25:49AM +0100, West, Matthew R 
> SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> My impression was that the 4D approach is attractive 
> precisely because it
> lets us posit that there *aren't* 2 objects for the duration 
> of the vase:

MW: I agree. I don't know anyone who has adopted 4D "knowingly"
without taking advantage of strong spatio-temporal identity.

> the vase is (is-identical-with) a temporal part of the lump of clay
> (4D-speak for "during that time the lump and the statue are the same
> thing"). So the 2 objects *are* coincident, not just "apparently
> coincident" -- in fact they are the same, i.e., there is one, not two,
> objects. 

MW: Yes, the vase is a temporal part of the clay lump.
> 
> Although I haven't read Sider's book (I am familiar with his 
> Phil. Review
> article with the same title), I confess to some puzzlement as to what
> exactly a "3D theory" is and says. Sider's interpretation of it as the
> mere denial of "four-dimensionalism" makes it very opaque -- 
> in fact, my
> impression is that Sider makes this denial so unintelligible that one
> comes away with a doubt as to the very meaningfulness of the debate.

MW: I think the foundational possibilities he considers are more 
interesting than his arguments, which I agree are sometimes opaque.
I have seen enough arguments against 4 dimensionalism that mostly
demonstrated a lack of understanding of the approach that I am cautious
about a 4 dimensionalist's arguments against alternative approaches,
though he seems to be trying to be fair.
> 
> But suppose, in any case, that the 3Der won't appeal to 
> temporal parts:
> then he'd have to agree to something like the Aristotle-Guarino-Lowe
> thesis: that the statue is the same as the lump of clay with a certain
> form (a property that is not essentially or "rigidly" of the 
> lump), not
> just the same as the lump of clay simpliciter.

MW: Sider identifies a number of other possibilities.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> - - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - -
> Pierluigi Miraglia                  Cycorp, Inc.
> Ontologist                          3721 Executive Center Dr.
> (512) 514-2988                      Austin, TX 78731
> 
>