|To:||"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:00:31 -0600|
At 12:48 PM -0500 1/21/08, John F. Sowa wrote:
If you look at the original OWL-Time ontology, before it became OWLized, that is exactly what Jerry H. did. There were actual propositions which one could assert, like (continuousTime) and (branchingTime) , or their negations, and the axioms were written with internal conditionals which selected the appropriate content for each case. The result is however rather awkward to read, to put it mildly.
In practice, I think a single, fairly simple, ontology is best for handling time. It should be agnostic on whether time is ultimately continuous or dense (because either choice gives far more complexity than one ever wants in practice) , ignore branching and circularity, have real but severely limited ability to speak of intermittent intervals like 'every tuesday afternoon', and have a very rich system of times and dates, savvy enough to keep track or real calendars (knows about timezones, summer times, notions of appropriate timescales, etc..
The lattice of theories
Harder = having been noted and tackled more times without success.
But the idea of taking the least significant digit as the criterion
Thats fine if you have digits to work with, but you usually don't.
But we can talk about them without specifying them numerically. They are limit constructs so inherently require infinite amounts of information to specify quantitatively. But I think we do specify points by description, eg "when the light came on". Certainly some reasoning is a lot easier if we can treat time points as being real points, eg it means that ordering needs only 3 cases (< = >) instead of 13.
Perhaps a better term would be "grain
:-) In the old survey I used 'moment' for a chunk of time with no smaller subchunks, and then the issue is whether moments are points. I think you would say that moments only exist at a given granularity, right?
Yes, sorry, that was a (temporary) artifact of replying to a Thunderbird-read email in Eudora. Won't happen again.
Ha. I get some where each reply comes back in a progressively larger size, like the guy is shouting louder and louder. Hmm, maybe that was deliberate.....
40 South Alcaniz St.
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Summit 2008 - Planning Meeting - Tue 2008.01.22, Peter Yim|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] CL, CG, IKL and the relationship between symbols in the logical "universeof discourse" and individuals in the "real world", Duane Nickull|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation, Duane Nickull|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation, matthew.west|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|