RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline - roles
Dear Doug,
See below.
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 22:22
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline - roles
>
>
>
>
> Matthew --
>
> I think my point is pretty simple. We have started labeling
> people as
> "Endurantists" and "Perdurantists". I won't be so labeled,
> and I believe
> such labeling is counterproductive. Am I being overly
> sensitive? I sure
> hope so!
MW: I think it only matters if the labels are:
a) used perjoratively, or
b) are innaccurate.
On the other hand, working out the particular viewpoints that people
have, perhaps based on a check list, is useful - bearing in mind
that anyone can have more than one viewpoint.
I also think it is important to establish whether possible viewpoints
are actually held by some people. I would hate to develop an ontology
that wasn't anyone's viewpoint.
>
>
> Doug
>
>
> "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> on 03/05/2001
> 12:15:55 PM
>
> To: Douglas McDavid/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> cc:
> Subject: 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'.
> >
>
>