Re: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
Ian Niles wrote:
>
> Matthew,
>
....
...
...
> >
> > 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
> > 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.
>
> I understand your position. ...
....
....
....
....
> >
> > 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.
>
> Well, in compiling the first few versions of the merged ontology, I've done
> my best to avoid adopting a "world viewpoint". I'm sure that many
FC: Ian, if you mean to include currently-merged-in material such as the
ORGANISM HIERARCHY,
then I am surprised that you say this, as indicated in my posting
earlier today re
a putative competing DOI based on genetic "distance".
> assumptions about the real nature of the world have crept in, but the aim
> has always been to create a high-level language that supports anything that
> we would ever want to say in a formal context.
>
....
....
....