Fwd: Re: SUO: Physical and Abstract (was Lifecycle IntegrationSchema
Dear all,
last week I sent a message to the SUO list and J. Sowa using my new
account. John gently replied a few days later but the original
message never showed up. I'm sending it for completeness.
(Thank you Jim for solving the problem.)
Stefano
========================================
X-Sender: borgo@loa-cnr.it@pop.191.it
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:20:39 +0200
To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
From: Stefano Borgo <borgo@loa-cnr.it>
Subject: Re: SUO: Physical and Abstract (was Lifecycle Integration Schema
Cc: SUO <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>, cg@cs.uah.edu,
borgo@loa-cnr.it, jim.s3@juno.com
Here is a short answer to a couple of messages by John.
As you can see, I haven't followed closely the discussion these months.
I'm trying to catch up (but it will take some time.)
Btw, the message where I voted M. West motions never made the list.
I'm using a new email address, it that the reason?
ps. Jim, I put you in cc so you can take care of this problem if
needed. Thanks in advance.
At 10:15 -0400 27/09/2003, John F. Sowa wrote:
>That is one of my primary objections to DOLCE: They
>put far too much emphasis on identity as something that
>is supposed to be fundamental to ontology. The DOLCE
When you combine ontology and logic, (absolute) identity becomes an
important element (since it is part and parcel of the logic
framework).
>solution is to relate identity to the concept type --
>but that just creates even more confusion. They
>end up with multiplicities of individuals in every
>space-time region depending on the whim of anybody who
>happens to classify what they see.
I'm afraid your choice of words tends often to be political more than
scientific.
The "whim" is not enough to distinguish entities.
If there are properties that one wants to consider and those seem
contradictory if applied to the same entity, one should consider
distinguishing different entities. Of course, one can take a
different approach. That does not upset people at LOA. However, it
seems that in applications what we suggest is considered a good
strategy.
>Identity is a very useful notion, but it is fundamentally
>context dependent.
We already had a discussion on your view of absolute identity but at
that time you could not be specific on the notion of symmetry (which
I surmise you equal to an equally vague notion of relative identity)
and I gave up considering your approach.
Do you have new thoughts about it? I'm interested (at least formally)
in these notions but I haven't seen any promising approach.
> It is something to be explicated,
>not a concept that you can use to explicate anything else.
I guess that was said by Peirce. End of the discussion.
:-)
At 13:58 -0400 30/09/2003, John F. Sowa wrote:
[snip]
>Finally, I want to point out that I use the categories
>Abstract and Physical to replace the older notions of
>Universal and Particular. Those were useful notions
>when Aristotle introduced them (by other names), but
>over the centuries, too many confused and ill-conceived
>conceptions have become associated with them.
I don't get it.
Are Abstract and Physical the same as Universal and Particular as
Aristotle used them, or is the latter pair useful for Aristotle but
not useful now?
Or is it just that you get confused easily and so you ask everybody
else to change notation?
>As just one example, I would cite the Dolce notion
>of "abstract particular" as an example of a confused
>and confusing conception. I realize that they have
>introduced ways of qualifying the confusion, but it's
>better to avoid the confusion by picking a better
>name to begin with.
I agree that it is very hard to understand the term "abstract
particular" in Dolce.
The reason is that "abstract particular" is NOT used in Dolce.
"Particular" is a term used only on the metalevel, it's not part of
the ontology.
"Abstract" occurs in the taxonomy.
"Abstract particular" is *never* used.
Perhaps, what you have seen is the reference to the book "Abstract
Particulars" by K. Campbell (see the bibliography)
May I ask you to *read* Dolce before next criticism? Again, here is the paper.
http://www.loa-cnr.it/Papers/WonderWebD17V2.0.pdf
Those looking for perfection might be disappointed by Dolce as well
as by the work of Peirce, Jesus, or Mohammed.
Still, all these deserve to be treated fairly.
cheers
Stefano
--
================================
Stefano Borgo
Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR
via Solteri 38
38100 Trento - ITALY
phone: +39 0461 436349
mobile: +39 3290 275830
fax: +39 0461 435344
email: borgo at loa-cnr.it
http://www.loa-cnr.it/
================================