RE: SUO: RE: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
Dear Frederick,
>
> "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.
MW: This is a worst case scenario for me.
>
> 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.
MW: This is one route, but I am against a monolithic ontology. I think we
need to structure things, both for understandability and maintenance (yes I
already have maintenance in mind, later will be too late).
>
> c) A 4D chunk and a mapping specification is created as an adjunct to
> the merged ontology.
MW: Well, or the merged ontology becomes an adjunct to the 4D ontology. I
would anticipate a 4D ontology would be one chunk, and the mapping another
chunk.
>
> 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.
> > >
> ...
> ...
> ..
> .
>
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
Mobile: +44 7796 336538
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================