Hi Pat - (01)
The space itself and "optimal space" is a question which may not be
solved for many years. (02)
What I'm really getting to duplicating the process from: a need, to a
design, to the equivelant of construction documents and quality
control, resulting in organized built spaces. As the process is
perfected in physical space using CAD, BIM, GIS efficient processes
and ontologies made for physical applications may prove useful to
design and build the kinds of structures you note below. (03)
Especially projects where the same participants are involved -
government organization, architect (classic or new), contractors,
business services, general public. Some of the participants needs,
skills, oversight and....use or appreciation of a well designed
space...are the same. The problem today, which many excellent people
are working on, is that basically anyone can create and introduce
their own versions of any type of "data building". Nearly all are
accessible to the general public with little to no oversight and
master planning about how all the buildings are working together, they
are just evolving and accumulating. (04)
The point is useful cross-overs need to be made. Without reinventing
the wheel as much as possible. (05)
Debbie (06)
On 1/22/07, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >RE interoperability between CAD, BIM, GIS I think many processes being
> >developed for physical space could applied to semantic space at the
> >same time.
>
> Hmm. While I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, let me suggest
> that this particular overloading of "space" might be misleading.
> Physical space has a very special structure: it is 2- or 2.5- or
> 3-dimensional, usually taken to be continuous or very close to it,
> often treated as a subset of R|n, has a meaningful topology and
> mereology, supports a variety of well-known algebras, etc.. But none
> of this applies to semantic "space". Or perhaps better, there isn't
> any evidence that any of it applies to semantic space, because nobody
> has a really convincing notion of what semantic space is really like.
> The best (ie not so obviously inadequate as the others) notions seem
> to involve not a continuous topological space but something more like
> a lattice (cf. the WordNet hypernym/hyponym structure) or a
> relational algebra (databases) or relational structure (logical
> concept models). Now, all of these can be called "spaces" in some
> mathematical sense, but that doesnt mean very much since almost
> anything with a structure can be called that, and the various
> mathematical senses are very different, and support very different
> kinds of mathematics. For example, basic topological facts like the
> Jordan curve theorem (to get from inside to outside, you have to pass
> through the boundary) are just plain false in lattices and relational
> models.
>
> Still, all that said, if you CAN find useful cross-overs, I agree
> they would be great to have.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
> (07)
-- (08)
************************************************* (09)
Deborah MacPherson
www.accuracyandaesthetics.com
www.deborahmacpherson.com (010)
The content of this email may contain private
confidential information. Do not forward, copy,
share, or otherwise distribute without explicit
written permission from all correspondents. (011)
************************************************** (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|