RE: SUO: RE: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema
They probably should be part of the ontology in some form, but not
necessarily as one of the ontological categories - particularly if
circularity is to be avoided. In the end I think that some set of things
will be regarded as axiomatic (such as Space and Time), but that still
leaves the problem of handling the concept of "existing in" or "located in"
and whether they are axiomatic or can be reduced to some more basic set of
axioms based on some more basic primitives. And, as you say "you have to
lay them clearly".
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Grenon [mailto:pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de]
Sent: 02 September 2003 13:47
To: Chris Angus
Cc: Pierre Grenon
Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema
Surely they should be part of the ontology! The point of formalizing your
ontological theory is that you unveil the stance. I'm not sure I get this
example, it seems like a problem with that particular ontology, don't you
think? (Last time I've come around somebody owning a copy of John Sowa's
book
was at Cycorp, a long time ago, so apologies for not entering into the
details
here.)
In the worst case, you claim that those things (like place and time) are
abstract in some sense to be explained. If you don't hold them as primitive,
at
the very least you offer a reductionist rationale (say, they are sets of
propositions, whatever, in which case, FOL might leave you hungry for more).
But, you then have your primitives and you have to lay them clearly
(propositions in that instance).
Sorry if I'm a bit thick.
Best,
Pierre
> Pierre
>
> I don't think that there is a problem with FOL as such, but at some stage
we
> need to be able to indicate what some of the symbols we use in a
particular
> theory denote in terms of a model and/or the world. This seems to me to
> present a problem when defining categories in a formal ontology simply in
> the sense of finding a suitably small(ish) set of things that can be
treated
> as primitive. If we take John Sowa's example lattice in section B.2 of
his
> KR book and look at his axiom for Physical (P) it relies on the terms
> 'Place' and 'Time' and the relation 'loc', but these are not a part of the
> ontology.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>