SUO: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema -- Matthew West
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: 22 September 2003 04:01
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; SUO
> Subject: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema -- Matthew West
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> LIS. Discussion Note 34
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Matthew,
>
> Back to the Big Top ...
>
> I would like to spend some time focusing on this initial distinction
> among <things> as being <possible_individuals> or <abstract_objects>,
> where you refer to the differential feature of existing in spacetime
> or not, respectively.
>
> | thing
> |
> | A <thing> is anything that is or may be thought about or perceived,
> | including material and non-material objects, ideas, and actions.
> |
> | Every <thing> is either
> | a <possible_individual>,
> | or an <abstract_object>.
> |
> | 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.
> |
> | NOTE 2. Every example provided for other entity data types
> | declared in this schema is also an example of <thing>.
> |
> |
> http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integrati
> on_schema/lexical/thing.html
>
> | A <possible_individual> is a <thing> that exists in space and time.
> |
> |
> http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integrati
> on_schema/lexical/possible_individual.html
>
> | An <abstract_object> is a <thing> that does not exist in space-time.
> |
> |
> http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integrati
> on_schema/lexical/abstract_object.html
>
> Many ontologies begin with a distinction that is at least
> superficially similar to this one, and many of them also
> mention the same specific difference, that of existing
> in space-and/or-time versus the apparent alternative.
> In many respects, then, my questions are meant for
> all ontologies that build on this notion, and not
> just yours alone.
>
> In this connection, I would like to call your attention to some of the
> things that C.S. Peirce said about abstractions -- and if anybody ever
> knew abstraction, this was the guy -- in this case using the old term
> of art "hypostatic abstraction" to mean what we would normally call
> an "abstract object", for example, egos, numbers, quarks, unicorns.
MW: I am out of the office at the moment and accessing e-mail on
my mobile, so looking things up on the internet doesn't work too well.
MW: However, to address your list above:
1. An ego would be a part of a person, and so exist in space-time
and so be an individual.
2. Numbers are abstract, arguably sets of sets.
3. Quarks also exist in space-time, though tying them down may
be tricky, so are individuals.
4. Unicorns can be considered to exist in some possible world, and
have a spatio-temporal extent in that possible world.
>
> 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10964.html -- Cain and Abel
> 02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10965.html -- Dormative Virtue
> 03. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10966.html -- Honey is Sweet
> 04. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10967.html -- Metaphormasis
>
> I made the mistake of starting with the most complex example,
> so skip over that one for now and let's get back to it later.
> The second example is Peirce's diagnosis of a notorious case,
> well worth the study as a precept for his entire doctrine of
> abstract entities. The third example makes for the clearest
> and simplest entry point, and I have illustretad the process
> whereby an abstract substantive gets precipitated out of the
> grammatical matrix of a concrete-adjective-bearing predicate.
>
> I think that it will repay us in the long-run, when it comes
> to understanding the relation between these two sides of the
> alleged knowledge ledger, to catch the act of abstraction in
> the act, as it were.
MW: I'll try to get beack to these later.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>