SUO: Re: CG: RE: RE: Re: Model of Activity and Action in SUO ontology
The vocabulary of processes, actions, activities, and so on is far from
uniform across speakers or authors. Likewise, the vocabulary for actors,
agents, instruments, forces, patients, themes, undergoers, and so on is far
from uniform (and in most descriptions I've seen, the distinctions are
pretty vague).
Relative to verbs, activities, actions and processes --
It seems to me that the basic 'thing' underlying verbal reference is a
state or situation or state of affairs (more discrepancies in usage) that
is 'static'. Other verbs build from this by incorporating changes in one
way or another. That is:
Basic to verbs are stative verbs or copular predicates: These are John
likes Mary. The cow is green.
Then come the verbs for ongoing 'activities,' a 'situation' where some
aspects of the state of affairs are changing: Jack is running. The ice
is melting, the sky is falling.
Then the verbs that denote a change of state (telic): The balloon
popped. The ice melted.
These can be further categorized according to the speed at which the state
changed, the number and kinds of participants, and so on.
Anyway, it seems that the basic need is to represent states of affairs (or
whatever we call them), and changes in these, and progressing changes in
these (running, melting, falling). I think these should be 'just below
nil', as Rich suggested (or just below 'top' as I would prefer to say).
As for vocabulary -- I certainly think we could adopt one ---if we can
agree on a principled way of distinguishing 'happenings' that fit the
different terms (oh-oh, there's another term).
My favorite approach, if it could be made to work, would to put 'process'
just below 'top' --- something along the lines of Johanna Seibt's Formal
Process Ontology, aka, Axiomatic Process Theory. Thing-like processes
would be just below processes. (Of course the Whiteheadian background for
this is apparent -- but I've tried to read 'Process and Reality a few times
with no success.)
At one time there was a preprint of a paper available on the Internet, but
I can no longer find it. Seibt is reportedly writing a book on the
subject, but I don't see any signs that it is out yet.
The theory is very interesting -- everything is a process. Seibt casts the
basic entities as as 'free processes', which have parts, but no space-time
location. The nature of space-time itself is not well worked out, but
appears to be a distinguished process.
(Lee Smolin, and some other quantum gravity folks think the universe is
actually all process--that the basic building blocks of space-time and
everything in it are processes (very tiny ones!)).
According to Seibt, an 'amount' of a process, say "Jack's running" is an
'interference' between 'space-timing', 'being jack' and 'running'. It is
these 'amounts' that we perceive with our personal amount of perceiving.
Not that I understand this, but it is an interesting approach.
Unfortunately, if I am correct, Seibt's theory as presented in the preprint
is flawed -- There are no finite models with atomic processes except the
trivial one with only one process with no parts. I'm not sure it has
interesting models where no process is atomic.
Seibt also outlines a typology of processes to distinguish 'thing-like'
processes, for example.
I once read (but unfortunately didn't write down the reference) that some
Native American languages seem to be all process -- e.g., there is a verb
meaning essentially 'being a house' rather than a noun 'house.'
Anyway, if an axiomatic process theory can be made to work I think it
simplifies things. If anyone knows of some 'active' references in this
area I'd like to see them. (I did read Rescher's book, 'Process
Metaphysics'. It was interesting, but not helpful (to me) in developing an
ontology.)
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:04:05AM -0800, Richard Cooper wrote:
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> >
> > Sure they do. Call it the environment. Considering
> > the environment an agent is a seminal idea for evolution
> > as a feedback mediated process. Am I missing a subtle
> > point in your definition of 'agent'?
> >
> > len
> >
> >
> > From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> >
> > Some processes, such as wind, rain, and weather don't have agents.
>
>
> I think John's definition of "agent" implies consciousness,
> or maybe "secondness" in Peirce's vocabulary. In IDEF0
> terms, your sense of the word is called a "mechanism", and
> a mechanism can include instances of conscious agents, purely
> mechanical devices, resources, or complex phenomenon objects
> like the environment.
>
> Much of the vocabulary I see used in present ontology work
> seems uncommon, and therefore less intutitive, to the casual
> browser. I think WordNet is a good source of common usage
> for these words and terms, and perhaps the top level SUO
> just below nil should be using words that people of all
> stripes think they understand. Of course, we will never
> fully agree on the words, but some sort of consensus might
> break out.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> =======================================================================To post a message, send mail to cg@cs.uah.edu.
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@cs.uah.edu with the command
> 'unsubscribe cg' in the message body.
> See http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/ for the mailing list archive
> See http://www.cs.uah.edu/~delugach/CG for the Conceptual Graph Home Page
> For help or administrative assistance, mail to owner-cg@cs.uah.edu