Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: SUO: RE: More KIF-ified Ontology Content




Chris Partridge wrote:
> It seems to me that the [KIF-ification of Casati & Varzi's ontology
> of holes] skips over some key ontological points (but maybe I have
> missed this) - which I believe at least some of the members of this
> list regard as important.
> Excerpt:
> "(documentation "The main thesis is that a hole is an immaterial body 
> located at the surface (or at some surface) of a material object. Since the 
> notion of a surface is essentially a topological one, and since the 
> property of being immaterial is reflected in the morphological property of 
> being fillable, the ontological basis is concerned first and foremost with 
> the general dependence of a hole on its host.")"
> 
> This excerpt (and Achille and Roberto's book) seems to presuppose two basic 
> (and distinct) ontological kinds; material and immaterial. However, these 
> do not seem to get mentioned in the KIF, only indirectly on their impact on 
> the notion of hole. I would have thought that basic ontological 
> distinctions such as these should be stated up front. 

But why?  Material objects, and some immaterial objects like holes,
occupy space as well, and space is a basic ontological concept, yet
C&V don't provide any axioms for space or spatial occupation
generally.  Nor should they.  For what they are interested in are the
more specialized topological properties of spatial objects.  So they
axiomatize those.  Similarly, C&V are not interested in immateriality
per se, but only certain more specialized morphological properties
that holes possess in virtue of their immateriality, notably,
fillability.

Of course, the immateriality of holes might prove relevant to some
other ontology with similarly oblique connections to immateriality,
and that is the point where an upper ontology might prove useful.  But
it is precisely because we don't want to require every ontology to
include all the details of its background ontology that an upper
ontology is being developed, isn't it?

Regards,

-chris

--

Christopher Menzel               # web: philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
Philosophy, Texas A&M University # net:      chris.menzel@tamu.edu 
College Station, TX  77843-4237  # vox:             (979) 845-8764