SUO: RE: Re: More KIF-ified Ontology Content
Jon,
It may well be best to ask Achille and Roberto exactly what they mean - or
consult the book.
However, I think it is not the Aristotelian distinction between matter and
form.
It is more like the distinction between matter and space, where matter
occupies space. However, as I recall (from several years ago) C&V do not
make any commitments to the nature of space, they just examine holes.
Chris M - is this right?
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
Sent: 11 December 2000 20:58
To: Chris Partridge; cmenzel@philebus.tamu.edu
Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: SUO: Re: More KIF-ified Ontology Content
Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> Chris [Menzel],
>
> I was not intending to suggest that there
> should be an axiomatisation of immateriality
> (or space) in the 'holes theory'. Merely that its
> 'dependence' on immateriality should be noted somehow.
> I think we both agree that the upper ontology should
> contain the material/immaterial distinction
> (if it is going to be anywhere).
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Chrises,
Is this im/material distinction the same
as Aristotle's "form/matter" distinction?
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤