SUO: RE: RE: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema
Matthew
Possibly, but I think that what I was really talking about was how we say
what the constant terms in the theory denote.
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
Sent: 02 September 2003 11:02
To: Chris Angus; Jon Awbrey; SUO
Subject: SUO: RE: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema
Dear Chris,
Possibly we are confusing a theory with what it can be
a model of.
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: Chris Angus [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
> Sent: 02 September 2003 10:48
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Jon Awbrey; SUO
> Subject: RE: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema
>
>
> In reply to Jon,
>
> >
> > But I have no information that allows me to apply
> > the criterion of "existing in space and time".
>
> Matthew wrote:
>
> MW: I quite agree. I would love to know how to do this.
>
> I think that this brings out an important issue in what we
> are attempting to
> do. Although our (formal) axioms may be expressible in FOL
> and can thus
> bring a substantial degree of rigour, there are times (as far
> as I can see)
> where we have to resort to relations and properties that
> relate to some
> metaphysical consideration and that cannot simply be derived
> by applying FOL
> to other relations and properties. Part of the problem is finding a
> suitably small, fundamental set of such things, suitably
> describing them and
> agreeing them. Am I missing something?
>
> Regards
> Chris Angus
>
>