Hi Barry
I think the discussion has moved on -
I would agree that continuants and occurrants, like most things that we observe are relative to our time-space standpoint, so relative to what we are trying to model, why and what artifacts
we choose etc lung deterioration is a state,( state as defined by the object model) so state is a property of an object http://www.objs.com/x3h7/omgcore.htm
a state is caused by a process, which sometimes is external to a model (if I take a snapshot of the lung now, i am modelling its state if I take a graph of the disease as it develops, then I am modelling a process)
I think the only point worth carrying forward in this discussion perhaps is: should we integrate views/models? reference to forthcoming research:
|
|
|
| Bridging the gap between the model-driven architecture and ontology engineering |
| Source
|
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
archive
Volume 65 , Issue 7 (July 2007)
table of contents
Pages: 595-609
Year of Publication: 2007
ISSN:1071-5819
|
|
Authors
|
|
Stephen Cranefield
|
Department of Information Science, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
|
|
Jin Pan
|
Department of Information Science, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand | | |
The bodies of snow involved in the avalanche flow are continuants.
>Well, surely waves are continuants, but freak waves 30 meters high are
>occurrents, right?
If waves are continuants, then all kinds of waves
are continuants. The process whereby the (sum of
molecules of water making the) freak wave reach
up to 30 meters is an occurrent.
>Avalanches may appear occurrents because we are
>not able to observe the pattern of recurrence.
>Assuming a long time continuum, and a
>measurement that establishes causes we may
>observe that avalances are also continuants,
>given certain conditions and appropriate time-space dimension
Cyclical occurrents, repeated occurrents,
slow-moving occurrents are all still occurrents.
(Every type of occurrent is also an occurrent;
every part of an occurrent is also an occurrent.)
>The lung cell deterioration is obviously a state
process
>, caused by certain (unkonwn) conditions, the
>occurrence may in fact be the condition that causes the state
You are introducing new technical terms ('state',
'condition', on the fly); please define.
BS
>Hopefull we can find ways of leverating this
>cell regeneration property of the body Azamat's
>article was mentioning. Interesting about the
>cortex not renewing itself, maybe thats where
>important receptor memory is stored or something
>
>PDM
>
>
>
>On 6/9/07, Chris Partridge
><<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi Barry,
>
>Comments below.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> <mailto:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:<mailto:
ontolog-forum-> ontolog-forum-
> >
> <mailto:bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
]
> On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> > Sent: 09 June 2007 13:54
> > To: [ontolog-forum] ; '[ontolog-forum] '
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but
> > bothneeded
> >
> > Responding to Chris's comments on Pat / Bill composite:
> >
> > At 05:32 AM 6/9/2007, Chris Partridge wrote:
> >
> > >Pat: 4) Again, following Quine's doctrine, what
>
>I think this might have been Bill - not Pat.
>
> > >are these things for which the
> > >continuant/occurrent distinction is
> > >incoherent? Presumably, you'd want to be
> > >quantifying over some class of objects for which
> > >you'd like to state some axioms governing, e.g.,
> > >property change over time, however that comes
> > >out in your favorite formalism. Then, by
> > >Quine's doctrine you're committing to the
> > >existence of those things. Let's call them
> > >Continuoccurrents. Now you have to elaborate
> > >your theory of Continuoccurrents and distinguish
> > >them from temperatures, numbers, properties,
> > >propositions and all the kinds of other things
> > >you have in your ontology. Doesn't sound to me
> > >like that project is any less problematic than
> > >the defense of either bicategorialism, 4D, or
> > >any other metaphysical framework. By this I
> > >mean on a practical, engineering level.
> > >
> > >Chris: It seems, to me at least, there is a
> > >difference between the continuant/occurrent
> > >distinction and some of the other choices. These
> > >other choices (e.g. 4D) seem to be metaphysical,
> > >in that it is difficult to devise an empirical
> > >check on whether they are correct. With the
> > >continuant/occurrent distinction there seem to
> > >be cases that question whether it partitions
> > >objects. You know the standard philosophical
> > >cases – avalanches and waves – as these have been discussed before.
> >
> > The problem here, I think, is that people assume
> > that fast-moving and fast-changing continuants
>
>Agreed.
>
> >
> > Consider a pack of monkeys moving through a
> > forest, losing the odd monkey at the rear and
> > gaining the odd monkey towards the front. The
> > pack is a continuant. The processes of losing and
> > gaining are occurrents. Waves are like that
> > (monkeys = water molecules); organisms are like that (monkeys = cells).
> >
> > Avalanche theory is based on the distinction
> > between granular layers (continuants) and flows
> > (which when summed together make the avalanches themselves).
> >
>
>So, waves are continuants and avalanches occurrents? Or slightly more
>accurately, there are wave continuants and wave-life occurrents, whereas
>there are only avalanche(-life) occurrents (i.e. there are no avalanche
>continuants) - as flows and flow-sums are occurrents. Have I understood your
>position correctly?
>
>I was going to ask this in my last email, but this provides a nice example.
>I can see there may be some background theory (granular layers?) that you
>could produce to motivate the distinction in particular cases. But how does
>someone decide in general whether something is an occurrent or a continuant
>- and how does this apply here. I would agree that there is probably a body
>of cases where reasonable people would agree (Fritz, for example) - but I
>think a claim as strong as that there are two distinct categories requires
>something more sturdy.
>
>If there is no general rule, I have a particular practical concern. If, in
>unclear cases, the decision is effectively a stipulation by some central
>authority, this reduces the effectiveness of federated analyses. If
>individuals make their own choices, this affects inter-operability.
>
> > > In ontologies that deal with engineering
> > > artefact, the same phenomena seems to arise
> > > when (when we have a similar structure where)
> > > objects are the components for other objects
> > > built out. A simple example would be a network
> > > of systems, sometimes people see it as the
> > > systems networking, sometime people see it as a
> > > network that things happen to – e.g. it goes
> > > down for a while. To go back to Barry's
> > > example, some biologists see human bodies, e.g.
> > > Fritz's, as a process, with temporal parts
> >
> > can you give me one or two examples of biologists who think that?
> >
> > >– and would find it odd to have to distinguish
> > >between Fritz's body and Fritz's body's life. It
> > >seems more as if the distinction is about
> > >different ways of looking at things, that
> > >sometimes can usefully be applied to the same thing.
> >
> > No one is denying that there are different ways
> > of looking at things. Perhaps someone can even
> > look at Fritz's body and see it as a life, though I find it hard to do so.
>
>But how does your bicategoralism exclude this, as '4D' is one of the
>categories? It is reasonably easy to determine the 4D extent of Fritz's body
>- and so this exists. It seems reasonable to call this either Fritz's body
>or his body's life. Are you objecting to the use of the term 'life'?
>
>Do not people talk about a pre-pubescent and pubescent stages of the body?
>Aren't there also fetal stages? What are these stages of?
>
> >
> > >
> > >My personal experience is that when dealing with
> > >the large bodies of data that exist in
> > >operational systems, when constructing simple
> > >taxonomies of the artefacts this data refers to,
> > >I am (reasonably) often faced with a problem
> > >about which category I want to put them in – and
> > >what category to put there more general
> > >supertypes that seem to include both occurrents
> > >and continuants. Of course, I can devise a
> > >practical workaround (for each of these
> > >problematic classes of objects, introduce two
> > >objects – the object and its life – and ignore
> > >feelings that these seem reminiscent of
> > >Ptolemy's major epicycles) but this adds noise.
> >
> > So how do you deal with John's lung was healthy 5
> > years ago and cancerous today?
>
>Did I miss the original example? I am not sure why this is problematic.
>Presumably John's lung was in a state of being healthy five years ago -
>there was a healthy temporal state of his lung five years ago (2002)- and
>there is a cancerous state of his lung now (9th June). One can also see
>John's state of having (or not having) a cancerous lung.
>
> >
> > >
> > >It also seems to me pragmatic to, when dealing
> > >with large systems, try to 'cut nature at its
> > >joints' and not have too many workarounds making
> > >the systems more complicated than they need to
> > >be. Hence my suspicions (and maybe Pat's) of this distinction.
> >
> > Having worked long and hard with biologists it
> > has become clear to me that the
> > continuant/occurrent distinction is the most well
> > entrenched of all the joints in nature (the
> > distinction between anatomy and physiology, for
> > example, is very old, and has not been threatened
> > one iota by recent developments in, e.g. cellular anatomy.)
>
>I would agree with you if you said that these were two ways of looking at
>things. What seems to me to be going too far is to assert that there are
>separate categories.
>
> > BS
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives:
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> > Subscribe/Config:
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > Unsubscribe:
> mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > Community Wiki:
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > To Post: mailto:
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version:
7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/841 - Release Date: 09/06/2007
> > 08:52
> >
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.13/841 - Release Date: 09/06/2007
>08:52
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives:
><
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config:
><
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: <
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post:
>mailto:<mailto:
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>Paola Di Maio *****
>School of Information Technology
>Mae Fah Luang University
>Chiang Rai - Thailand
>*********************************************
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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/
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
--
Paola Di Maio *****
School of Information Technology
Mae Fah Luang University
Chiang Rai - Thailand
*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|