RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
I've snipped most of the following, and left only the snippet I want to
comment on
just now.
It seems to me that it is fundamental that things don't have locations.
They only
have locations _relative_ to other things. (This harks back to John
Sowa's list
of coordinate systems or coordinate free alternatives of a day or so back.)
There is a function underlying _where_ that is a binary function, for
example,
separation(x,y).
(Sorry, I can read some KIF but can't write it yet.).
Then there would be functions from whatever is in the range of _separation_
to the real numbers, so we would have, for example,
miles(separation(me,home))= 15.
It isn't too far from here to being able to define coordinate frames.
I'll try
to put some rigor behind this as an exercise for myself.
Similar comments apply to the time dimension.
John Velman
Ian Niles <iniles@teknowledge.com>@ieee.org on 02/27/2001 12:07:43 PM
Please respond to Ian Niles <iniles@teknowledge.com>
Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
cc:
Subject: RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
.....
OK, this sounds like a good name, and I like the idea of a function from
things to their locations. Note though that the two functions won't be
exactly analogous, since the locative function will require an extra
argument, viz. a point in time or a time interval.