RE: ONT RE: Ontology case study
Dear Bill,
See comments below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Andersen [mailto:andersen@ontologyworks.com]
> Sent: 31 May 2002 16:18
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; SUO Ontology
> Subject: Re: ONT RE: Ontology case study
>
>
> On 5/31/02 4:06, "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE"
> <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> wrote:
>
> > MW: This is one of the primary reasons for adopting a 4D ontology.
> > Temporal reasoning becomes quite straight forward.
>
> How so, Matthew. All you do is swap a problem of dealing
> with time-indexed
> relations for one of mereological relations.
MW: Yes, but it is classical mereology, not the mess you get into if
you try to do a temporally indexed mereology (see Simons).
>
> For someone who calls out frequently for a practical outlook
> in ontology,
> there can be no more practical move than to keep the 3D ontology for
> "substances" (objects) and the 4D for "moments" (processes) - this is
> basically the split advocated by Peter Simons, Barry Smith,
> and others.
MW: I disagree that 3D is more practical for substances. It might be
closer to how we talk, but it is not as good for automated reasoning
(IMHO).
>
> Those who want exclusively a 3D or 4D view make things hard
> for themselves.
> There seem to be both - related by dependence.
MW: I do not advocate only a 4D approach. My view is that 3D is best
for communicating with people (it is how many of them talk) and 4D is
better for reasoning itself, so I would be happy to use both and map
between the two.
>
> .bill
>