RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline - roles
Dear Doug,
I'm sorry, I really don't get your point here.
> I am going on
> record to say I
> will resist any attempt to classify me in such a way, and will work to
> maintain an inclusive rather than a fragmenting posture for
> any product
> that emerges from our collective efforts.
It is Chris who is precisely arguing that we should include and understand
the different 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/
http://homepages.rya-online.net/matthew-west
=============================================
Also:
Shell Visiting Professor
The Keyworth Institute
The University of Leeds
http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
=============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas McDavid [mailto:mcdavid@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 05 March 2001 17:26
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline - roles
>
>
>
>
> Chris --
>
> I would like to make an observation here that just struck me
> as a point of
> discomfort. I suppose it is an interesting and valid thing
> to explore at
> length the ontological architecture that you have articulated - both
> earlier and in your revised Word document version over the
> last several
> days. I have to admit that I don't really get the distinction that is
> being labored so mightily between a 4-D world and a 3-D world
> plus time. I
> say this having read your book very thoroughly, which you
> were kind enough
> to send me in electronic form. I annotated it heavily, with
> the intent of
> pursuing a detailed conversation with you, because it seems to be very
> fundamental in the minds of several people here, but I haven't had the
> time, then or now to really engage at the level I would like.
>
> The point of discomfort for me, though, goes beyond the
> architecture, or
> issues ontological relativism. What concerns me is language
> such as "I
> hope you are not dismissing the difference between Endurantists and
> Perdurantists". This appears to go beyond the discussion of
> concepts and
> architectures into the realm of classifying people into
> various camps based
> on their understanding, use of, or comfort with, these concepts. This
> reification of concepts in the form of competing groups of people, and
> labeling human beings in this way, will tend to create a
> polarizing effect
> that is antithetical to the work at hand. By this I am not
> simply whining
> "Can't we all just please get along ...". I am going on
> record to say I
> will resist any attempt to classify me in such a way, and will work to
> maintain an inclusive rather than a fragmenting posture for
> any product
> that emerges from our collective efforts.
>
>
> Doug McDavid
>
> Certified Executive Consultant
> Voice of the Practitioner Initiatives
> Professional Development - BIS, Americas
> Member of IBM Academy of Technology
> mcdavid@us.ibm.com -- 916-549-4600
>
>
> Chris Partridge <chris_partridge@csi.com>@ieee.org on
> 03/05/2001 05:49:04
> AM
>
> Please respond to Chris Partridge <chris_partridge@csi.com>
>
> Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>
>
> To: sowa@bestweb.net, standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> cc:
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline - roles
>
>
>
>
> John,
>
> I think we might be agreeing - at least in part.
>
> I was not arguing for one ontology being right - merely for
> understanding
> what choices one faces when trying to make a consistent 'collection of
> signs'.
>
> I agree that there are different world views - which one can
> characterize
> as
> collections of signs. It is probably true that some of the different
> collections of signs are better for one purpose, and some for
> others. And
> that, in some sense, it is better to have a collection of collections.
>
> However, it seems to me that making a consistent 'collection
> of signs' or
> 'world-view' is difficult. So producing even one consistent
> view would be
> an
> achievement. Also, that the process of producing the one view helps to
> establish how each choice influences/constrains the others.
>
> Other comments below: CP>
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sowa@bestweb.net [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 05 March 2001 02:00
> To: Chris Partridge; John F. Sowa; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline - roles
>
>
> Chris,
>
> Although I am a realist (in the sense that I believe that there
> are fundamental laws of the universe, which science is slowly
> approaching, but never quite capturing completely), I
> also believe that any representation we use is at best an
> approximation for a particular purpose. My main point is that
> I don't consider any representation to be absolutely correct.
>
> CP> The ontological relativity is different from the
> increasing accuracy of
> empirical theories - as what distinguishes the different ontological
> positions is not a matter for empirical observation.
>
> >Of course, I if was going to be exact, I should have written - "In a
> >Perdurantist (Eternalist) Ontology ..." - but everyone seems
> to have taken
>
> >4-D and 3-D as short-hand for this.
>
> I don't even like terms like perdurantist as qualifiers on the
> ontology. I consider them (like 3-D and 4-D) to be qualifiers
> on a particular collection of signs that may be useful for one
> purpose and not quite so useful for others. I don't consider
> either 3-D or 4-D to be "more fundamental" than the other.
>
> CP> I do not remember arguing that one or other was more
> fundamental (I am
> not sure how one would measure fundamental) - however I do
> believe (along
> with Matthew and Pat) on the basis of experience, that the 4-D (or
> Perdurantist) view has significant advantages for the
> semantic integration
> of commercial systems (e-commerce etc.). I also think that if
> someone were
> to document this view in detail, this would be a big step forward.
>
> >the position is really about
> >the nature of change and time and - as you have pointed out
> a number of
> >times - the closely related notion of cause.
>
> I agree.
>
> >However, I hope you are not dismissing the difference
> between Endurantists
>
> >and Perdurantists as 'artifact[s] of
> >the notation'.
>
> As I have said, each view emphasizes some aspects of reality
> that may be more difficult to state in the other. They each
> have their place. I would consider them important for the SUO,
> but there are an enormous number of very serious issues that
> are more important than either one.
>
> CP> It seems to me that if we are going to produce a
> 'collection of signs',
> it is useful to understand what constraints there are on
> these. And that
> producing a 'collection of signs' is one of the starting points to
> producing
> a collection of collections of signs.
> CP> What other issues would you regards as more important?
>
> >.... It seems to me
> >that you are assuming an ontological absolutism that cannot
> be supported.
>
> No, not at all. I consider all axiomatizations as collections
> of signs that are used to express some particular view of
> the reality. But I don't think that any one collection can ever
> be complete by itself. The totality of all such views would be
> better, but even that would probably be incomplete in many ways.
>
> CP> I am not sure what you mean here by complete. Surely one
> can produce a
> 'complete' world view? Of course, you could argue a
> collection of world
> views would be better - but is 'complete' a good word to use for this
> collection - as it probably has an infinite number of members and the
> chance
> of us getting a 'complete' collection of them is small - and
> the chance of
> us proving it is complete even smaller.
>
> >The key point about ontological relativity is that is forces on us
> >architectural choices when building our ontology - and the need for
> >translations between alternative choices.
>
> I agree. I just want to keep all choices in the ontology
> instead of saying that each choice leads to a different
> ontology.
>
> CP> I do not see how you can do this technically - but even
> if one could,
> then surely this makes the ontological architecture exercise even more
> valid - as it highlights the constraints each choice places
> upon the other
> choices.
>
> John
>
>
>
>