Suppose Matthew's 4D approach must be used in new generation IT
Applications in principle (see his reply to you!
"then changes are made to the data in the database,
and the previous state of affairs is lost. This sometimes has
severe consequences... This is one of the motivations for adopting a
4-dimensionalist approach to ontology ".
There are some steps in this direction in the ERP applications already.
Such in Oracle HR module they use standard way to represent "date tracked
objects" . And there is no problem to look for example to a last name of a
woman when she was young and not married.
But this approach is used to only for such entities as Persons, Positions
and Assignments. The Matthew's 4D is "global" in principle ! You may look
at his paper around -
and to many another papers around -
Leonid - http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it (02)
> Hi David,
> I guess it depends on whether you believe in possible worlds. It looks
> like the OMG model is using
> the possible world model view. In that view, some believe that
> propositions are assertions
> (concept and predicate) which have a truth value with respect to a
> possible world - which is
> basically a model with various attributes. The existence of possible
> worlds a big area of debate
> with philosophers because of what can be entailed from this model -
> around identity (is it
> reflexive, transitive, etc.. across possible worlds?) as well as reasoning
> with propositional
> attitudes (e.g. how does modifying an assertion with wish/believe/want/
> affect it's truth value?).
> It appears that OMG is taking this model theoretic approach in order to
> address change over time.
> By using a possible worlds model, one can explicitly state that an
> assertion is true with respect
> to many variables, one being time.
> For example (the one given in the OMG spec), to model that a business has
> changed location (and
> with the constraint that businesses have only one location), you will have
> two different
> propositions that are true in different worlds (but would be contradictory
> if expressed in the
> same world). The assumption here (I believe) is that there is some way to
> express identity across
> the possible worlds and a way to somehow keep track of all the models
> through all the possible
> changes that occur in a business. Since data can change rapidly, does this
> mean that there is a
> separate model for each point in time? I can't tell. Is this supposed to
> be used in real
> applications? I can't tell.
> <Dear philosophers and logicians: This is just to get the conversation
> started. I am recalling
> from a PWS class I took nearly 20 years ago, so please argue with the
> assertions and not judge
> the creator. ((Belief (Lisa ?P))m,w,t) does not entail ?P to be true!!
> thanks :) >
> --- "David C. Hay" <dch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> To the ontology community,
>> In the �Business Owners� / �Data� cell, I made
>> use of recent work being submitted to the Object
>> Management Group on the �Semantics of Business
>> Vocabulary and Business Rules�. From that work
>> among other things I built the meta-data model of PROPOSITION.
>> (Today I am having trouble linking to anything,
>> so I cannot give you the exact URL, but go to
>> OMG.org and look up that title. Theirs is much
>> more rigorous and complete than mine, which also
>> makes it also somewhat impenetrable to us mere
>> mortals. I would like to think that my book is a
>> bit more readable. The relevant section in my book is on pages 48-54.)
>> The OMG definition is simply that a PROPOSITION
>> is the linking of two or more CONCEPTS. As you
>> people have pointed out, a PROPOSITION is
>> fundamentally an abstraction, which may be
>> described by one or more STATEMENTS, each of
>> which must be via exactly one PHRASE. Each
>> PHRASE, in turn, must be in exactly one LANGUAGE.
>> Note that there is no assumption of the truth or
>> falsity of a PROPOSITION. Rather, one kind of
>> PROPOSITION is a FACT, which is asserted to be
>> true. (Ok, determining who�s doing the assertion
>> is left as an exercise for the reader.)
>> I don�t have the symbolic logic rigor of your
>> academic world, and alas, I have not absorbed all
>> of the authors you cited, but the effort required
>> to produce this model was significant, and the
>> language of e/r modeling allowed me to be very
>> precise in my assertions. I would like to think
>> y�all will find it to be of value.
>> Dave Hay
>> Essential Strategies, Inc.
>> Houston, Texas
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/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
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)