SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 48
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
Matthew,
I don't think it would be a bad idea to slow down and take some time
with this first distinction, between abstract things and other sorts
of things. One reason is that there seem to be many generic problems
arising here, the sorts of things that will probably come up again with
each new distinction that we try to draw in each new ontology that comes
our way. If we can work out generic soluitions to some of these generic
problems, then it will probably pay dividends in the long run.
In a very real sense, then, the questions that I am asking here would be
addressed to every candidate ontology that comes before the working group,
and not just the LIS model alone.
So let me ask the Big Question yet another way:
| What is the operational test of the distinction
| between abstract things and non-abstract things?
The word "operational" is critical here. I wouldn't be
asking this if I felt that the explanations so far given
of <abstract_object> and <possible_individual> were giving
us operational definitions of these categories, in other words,
operational tests that tell us whether given instances of things
should be sorted to one bin or the other. For instance, referring
to the criterion of "inexistence" versus "existence" in space-time
is nothing but a form of buck-passing if we have no better test for
the latter distinction than we have for the former.
MW: In our wider architecture we recognise that there might be many views
of what abstract is. The architecture supports and expects any number
of models. The issue is how to translate between them. The model I
have presented here is the upper level of what the architecture calls
an Integration Model. That is, it is not so much itself intended to
represent every possible way of looking at the world directly, but to
be a way of representing the world that is sufficiently unambiguous
that people can map their own views of the world to it, and thus
to each other, with a high degree of precision. This is actually
what ended up driving us towards a 4D view for this purpose, since
it has seemed to us to have the greatest clarity.
JA: This sounds good. I never get the 3d/4d thing,
since most state spaces that I worry about have
far more dimensions than that, even if they grow
in leaps of 3 dimensions or bounds of 4 dimensions
at a time.
MW: Well I have dealt with spaces of up to 200 dimensions, but what is special
about space and time is that mereology continues to work when you move from
3D to this 4D. It doesn't when you throw in say temperature or pressure.
Yes, I have always suspected that you had hidden dimensions,
but I'm glad to hear you finally confirming that impression.
Still, what you say seems all the worse for mereology,
and I hope nobody like that engineered my new furnace.
Have to break here ...
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o