Re: ONT RE: Ontology case study
On 5/31/02 11:41, "Chris Partridge" <chris_partridge@csi.com> wrote:
>
> Hold on Bill,
>
> It is true that you need to synchronise the way you deal with qualitative
> change and component change. Your decisions in both areas need to mesh - but
> this is not a problem. Or maybe I should say what is the 4D problem with
> mereological changes that you see?
No problem. Only in the 4D world there is no "change" per se. Change is
handled, as you know, by a 4D particular having parts with properties that
are different than other parts.
> The issue for me is how much complexity you want to manage. 3D adds to the
> complexity as you have extra things to synchronise. Barry's half-way house
> still retains the complexity - in fact, increases it. He may argue that the
> trade-offs make it worthwhile - but that is a different argument.
I may have been mistaken, then, thinking you were arguing for a 4D ontology
as somehow being superior to a 3D one. I think the two can get along quite
nicely.
Also, from a purely philosophical standpoint, I don't think a complexity
tradeoff is even an issue - it's a matter of getting things right. I am a
pretty vehement opponent of a priori simplification on pragmatic grounds.
The extreme end of this is the DL/RDF crowd, who have simply redefined the
term "ontology" to mean those logical theories (and ad hoc ones at that -
from a philosophical viewpoint) that they can express in their simplified
logics.
In my view, the place for tradeoffs is in computational implementation, not
in ontology. And if you need 3D + 4D and FOL or greater to express content,
then so be it - let the chips fall where they may.
.bill