Re: SUO: RE: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
"West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" wrote:
>
> Dear Ian,
>
> Please see further comments below.
> ....
..
..
..
>
> MW: You may recall that I have said a couple of times that at least the 4D
> ontology I am working on should be mapped to and not combined with the
> workyou are doing. The reason is that in a 4D ontology there are no
FC: Matthew, could you please indicate which of the following is closest
to
what you have in mind re mapping?
a) The merged ontology file is duplicated, creating two ontologies.
One ontology is tailored as a 4D ontology while the other is not.
b) The merged ontology file is augmented with a 4D chunk.
Inferences between a 4D individual and very-high-level constructs
are possible.
Inferences between a non-4D individual and very-high-level
constructs are possible.
c) A 4D chunk and a mapping specification is created as an adjunct to
the merged ontology.
d) Something else involving the augmentation of the merged ontology with
respect to 4D individuals.
> individuals that are continuents. That is because the basis for what an
> object is is different. On the other hand, from a 4D individual, you will
> always be able to infer an occurrent (it might even be the same object - I'm
> not sure) and sometimes you will be able to infer a continuent, but this
> will definitely not be the same thing as the object from which the
> continuents existence is inferred.
>
> MW: The inferences (in both directions) constitute the mapping. A mapping
> specification may be developed for members of particular classes.
>
> MW: The advantage of this approach is that different world viewpoints are
> respected and kept separate, whilst we learn explicitly of the relationship
> between them, and we have a basis for challenging the utility and
> completeness of particular world viewpoints.
> >
...
...
..
.