SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 13
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
| Tantum ergo sacramentum
| veneremur cernui,
| et antiquum documentum
| novo cedat ritui,
| praestet fides supplementum
| sensuum defectui.
|
| So great therefore a sacrifice
| let us humbly adore
| and let the old law yield
| to the new rite;
| let faith supplement
| the shortcoming of the senses.
|
| Lyric by Thomas Aquinas,
| Music by Amadeus Mozart, KV 142 & 197.
Focusing on:
| 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_integration_schema/lexical/possible_individual.html
JA: I am trying to figure out:
JA: (1) what you mean by the term "possible_individual" ...
MW: http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/Spatio-temporal-Paradigm.pdf
JA: (2) whether that meaning can be formalized
in terms of an axiomatic theory ...
JA: (3) what sorts of things come under the
heading of a "possible_individual".
JA: 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"?
JA: In other words:
JA: What is the operational definition of
"imaginable within some consistent logic".
MW: By logically consistent we meant that the existence
of objects did not present a logical inconsistency.
JA: I recognize this as the "mark of mathematical existence" (MOME).
But most folks would draw, if they could figure out how, a very
hard line between this brand of mathematical existence and, well,
the existential kind, if you know what I mean. In other words,
there are models of theories that have very little attachment
to physical or spacetime realities, and so we still have to
decide which of the logical models are analogical models
of any given objective domain in realworld experience.
MW: Imaginable means that they could exist in this or some possible world.
JA: Imaginable means "able to be an object of images".
MW: When I use a term, it means what I intend it to.
JA, corrected and revised:
If only we could get computers to act on our intents,
not our codes, mending the defects of our implements,
full and faithful supplements of what we had in mind,
JA: The question here is what it will demand to fully formalize
the provisional hints of formulation that you have provided.
The condition of your working document is very like all the
others that we're likely to see here in its fledgling state.
The fact is that we just don't yet have the engines that it
would take to get any of them off the ground, for all their
fancied puffing up, the fluff of feathers, the gloss of wax.
MW: Then I guess we'd better build them.
That's what I've been about for quite a while now.
But even with your unaided reason you must be able
to appreciate how often you explain one problematic
definiendum in terms of an ever-expanding complex of
still more problematic definientia? For example, your
"definition" of <possible_individual> passes the buck to
<existence> <in> <space> <time>, and then from <existence>
to <imaginable> <within> <some> <consistent> <logic> <including>
<actual> <hypothetical> <planned> <expected> <required> <individual>.
Then I have to wonder whether each of these classes of <individuals>
does not depend on the definition of the term <possible_individual>
for their own definitions. To <define> is to aphorize, to bound,
to constrain, to determine the horizon of an idea, to restrict
the application of a conception, to set term limits on a term.
Now this might be attempted in absolute terms, but it is more
often achieved in relative terms, by the mutual restraint of
many notions in league with each other for concerted intents.
In the pursuit of your definitions, I find that my own power
of concentration fades so fast that I'd be forced at last to
cry "Uncle!" and concede to you the benefit of my doubt that
perhaps you are making some kind of sense, when all has been
said and done. But I know that computer implementations of
logical formalities will never have the good grace to work
at all on nothing more than you have stipulated so far.
So let us blame the computer for this lack of faith,
and heft the bale that only good works can shift.
MW: Example requirements we have are plans (including alternative
scenarios) and incident investigation -- looking at alternative
histories of how we might have got here after, e.g., an accident.
JA: This sounds real enough for anybody.
JA: Could you tell us what a typical application is like
and what your ontology does for you in such a setting?
MW: A typical application would be the bringing together of
engineering design data for an offshore oil-rig (think
pantechnicans in paper form) from multiple systems,
integrate and consolidate that data for handover
to the operator of the rig for putting into the
various operations and maintenance systems.
MW: The ontology gives us a common language that can be
used to describe the design so that the various data
can be brought together into a consolidated data set,
so we can check consistency and completeness of the
data set. Being a standard data model (and reference
data) means that we will in time be able to compare
performance and reliability of equipment across Shell.
MW: The next step in developing the ontology would be to add details
like design rules and regulations so that at least some design
checks can be automated.
JA: This is more like what what I need to know.
I will try to keep these gemmy bits in mind
as I drill deeper into the ontological strata.
JA: Could you pick out a few terms or concepts that you think
are especially important and tell us how defining them the
way you do is critical to success in practical applications?
MW: It doesn't matter which one you look at, the highest priority
is for clarity and lack of ambiguity in meaning. The ontology
is intended to be used by a broad range of people who will not
necessarily meet each other, even when one creates the data
another uses.
JA: Okay.
MW: One reason for choosing a 4D paradigm is that the
principles are simple and can be rigorously applied.
JA: I've never understood that whole 3d/4d controversy.
For me the number of columns in a relational table
is the ostensible dimensionality that I start with.
MW: I'm hoping that what we do here will eventually lead
to an understanding of the difference, and whether it
is significant ot not. in my view we lack evidence,
and only have intuition at present.
Yes.
JA: I think that the more concrete detail we can bring out to fill in
the spaces currently swept out by the abstractions of <thing> and
<abstract_object> and <possible_individual> and so on, the better
we will come to comprehend what is really desirable and feasible
in the present setting.
MW: If we return to possible_individual and what can be axiomatised
about it, then 4D objects are subject to classical (4D) mereology.
I would assume that topology would also apply.
JA: I think that we're a long way from anything that I could recognize
as an axiomatic formulation of the intended relations among things,
abstract_objects, and possible_individuals, but at least I seem to
be getting much better soundings than I've heard heretofore.
MW: Well lets call that progress then :-)
And there, at last, we have a pragmatic definition of "progress".
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o