SUO: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema
Dear Jon,
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: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 02 September 2003 04:07
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; SUO
> Subject: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> LIS. Discussion Note 4
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Matthew,
>
> I'm not sure we're done with things yet,
> and now I have to learn yet another new
> multitude of connotations for the words
> "normative" and "informative" -- in the
> mean time I'll use "definitive" to talk
> about collections of statements that we
> can use as logical definitions and I'll
> use terms like "comment", "description",
> or "example" for the more informal bits
> of information constraining the meaning
> of a term.
>
> But let me step down a step to these terms:
>
> | abstract_object
> |
> | An <abstract_object> is a <thing> that does not exist in space-time.
> |
> | EXPRESS specification:
> |
> | ENTITY abstract_object
> |
> | ABSTRACT SUPERTYPE
> |
> | SUBTYPE OF (thing);
> |
> | END_ENTITY;
> |
> |
> http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integrati
> on_schema/lexical/abstract_object.html
>
> | possible_individual
> |
> | A <possible_individual> is a <thing> that exists in space and time.
> |
> | This includes:
> |
> | - things where any of the space time dimensions are
> vanishingly small,
> | - those that are either all space for any time, or all time
> and any space,
> | - the entirety of all space time,
> | - things that actually exist, or have existed,
> | - things that are fictional or conjectured and possibly exist
> | in the past, present or future,
> | - temporal parts (states) of other individuals,
> | - things that have a specific position, but zero extent in
> | one or more dimensions, such as points, lines, and surfaces.
> |
> | In this context existence is based upon being imaginable within
> | some consistent logic, including actual, hypothetical, planned,
> | expected, or required individuals.
> |
> | EXAMPLE. The pump with serial number ABC123, Battersea
> Power Station,
> | Sir Joseph Whitworth, Shakespeare, and the starship
> "Enterprise" can be
> | represented by instances of <possible_individual>.
> |
> | EXPRESS specification:
> |
> | ENTITY possible_individual
> |
> | SUBTYPE OF (thing);
> |
> | END_ENTITY;
> |
> |
> http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integrati
on_schema/lexical/possible_individual.html
>
> It must be clear that there is nothing very definitive or
> definitional about the lead off statements in these texts?
>
> At this point I only know the word "thing", which appears to be
> an undefined primitive, though we have had a characterization of
> how it is intended to be used in particular contexts of discussion.
>
> And we have the constraint on the application of the words
> that tells us
> that things are partitioned into abstract_objects and
> possible_individuals.
>
> But I have no information that allows me to apply
> the criterion of "existing in space and time".
MW: I quite agree. I would love to know how to do this.
>
> It is always possible that the information is meant to flow
> the other way around, and that maybe I should have started
> at the bottom of the ordering, if there is a bottom?
MW: I'm not sure it would help.
>
> Some of the examples only add more difficulties to the mix.
>
> By what sort of decision process can I judge whether the
> Starship Enterprise is "imaginable within some consistent
> logic, including actual, hypothetical, planned, expected,
> or required individuals"? The catch here is not so much
> the "imaginable" as it is the "consistent".
MW: Not sure I understand the problem here ...
MW: Probably something to be aware of is that the target
aurdience for this document is engineers and IT professionals,
and not philosophers/logicianns. So I do not recommend looking too
deeply. Take a gloss, and if you think it can be stated more
clearly/formally raise an issue and make a proposal. I am
quite up for improving this start point. In fact that is one
of my main reasons for proposing it here.
>
> At this point I still have to treat "abstract_object" and
> "possible_individual" as undefined terms, but as ones that
> are constrained in their relative meanings by their declared
> logical relations to each other, and also to the term "thing".
MW: Fine.
>
> It is interesting that we can have these quanta of information
> about relations long before we have information about essences.
> The classical example of this occurs in axiomatic geometry, where
> "point" and "line" are terms that remain undefined in any absolute
> sense, and yet are constrained to take up their roles in a relation
> that is described by axioms, in this way being "defined in relation"
> to each other.
MW: This seems to be as much as you can do.
>
> I am also reminded of another relation that John Sowa points out
> between his analogous arrays of Abstract and Physical categories:
>
> | Each abstract category on the right of Figure 2.7
> | [Figure 2 on the web page] is said to 'characterize'
> | the corresponding physical category on the left:
> |
> | a schema characterizes an object;
> | a script characterizes a process;
> | a description characterizes a juncture;
> | a history characterizes a participation;
> | a reason characterizes a structure; and
> | a purpose characterizes a situation.
> |
> | John F. Sowa, 'Knowledge Represntation', p. 75.
> | http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/toplevel.htm
MW: Unfortunately I don't "get" John's categories, so this doesn't
help me much.
>
> This is very important, as it brings us to the threshold
> of Peirce's sign relations. I will return to it again.
> And it bears on the Note that you appended to "thing":
>
> | NOTE 1. Every <thing> is identifiable within a system.
> | System identifiers created by other systems and received
> | as part of a data exchange may be stored for future reference
> | as an identification, referring to the originating organisation
> | or system.
MW: I suggest not worrying about this, as I have said before. In
terms of philosphical importance, it can be deleted.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>