Pat, (01)
No apology needed. I think you are completely correct and I had pretty much
reached that very same decision myself (without an answer to the question).
I don't think in Continuants or occurrences, and trying to classify
everything in one or the other is time consuming and does not seem to matter
in the reasoning in the end. (02)
Cecil
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:18 PM
To: clynch
Cc: 'Smith, Barry'; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but both
needed (03)
>Barry,
>
>Acts of observations are still Acts. I would assume that all of these Acts
>of observations are occurants (assuming fractures, floods etc are verbs and
>not nouns, or maybe this does not matter in the distinction)? (04)
Sorry to butt in, but this kind of discussion
illustrates my point. There is absolutely no
ontological-engineering reason why anyone should
ever ask or answer such a question. The
distinction is there only to maintain itself.
Eliminating it simplifies the ontology and
eliminates entire threads of completely pointless
discussion, debate and questioning. There is no
right or wrong answer. The proper answer to "is X
an occurrent or a continuant?" is, both literally
and colloquially, "Whatever." (05)
If you think it is a continuant, you will prefer to write things like (06)
(R X time) (07)
if you like it to be an occurrent, you might prefer to write things like (08)
(R (at X time)) (09)
Or, you can do both. Up to you. Nothing important
follows from either choice, if you use the right
underlying logic. (010)
Pat Hayes (011)
>
>Cecil
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Smith, Barry [mailto:phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:35 PM
>To: clynch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but both
>needed
>
>At 05:14 PM 6/12/2007, you wrote:
>>Barry,
>>
>>At the risk of really irritating a philosopher, what is the difference
>>between HL7 Entities and Acts as compared to continuants and occurants? Is
>>there any?
>
>HL7 gets these two things nearly right.
>
>Entities, for HL7, are: physical things, persons and organizations.
>All of which are continuants.
>Unfortunately they classify individual biomolecules as occurrents
>(biomolecules are, for HL7, acts of observation). I am told that this
>oddity is in process of being corrected.
>
>Acts for HL7 are (on one reading at least) intentional actions of
>human beings and/or organizations. (On another reading Acts include
>also non-intentional actions. On yet another reading Acts are
>identified as the documentations of intentional actions.)
>
>The problem with HL7 is that it has no place for those items in
>reality which are neither Entities nor Acts as thus defined. Thus it
>has no place for diseases, drug interactions, wounds, fractures,
>accidental poisonings, storms, floods, etc. To save the day, it
>identifies all of the latter as Acts of observation.
>
>BS
>http://hl7-watch.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>>Cecil
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:00 PM
>>To: Pat Hayes
>>Cc: [ontolog-forum]; Pierre Grenon
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but both
>>needed
>>
>>At 04:22 PM 6/11/2007, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> >Big snips to shorten the message...
>> >
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>After thinking and arguing about endurance and perdurance for
>> >>>>>longer than I care to remember, I have come a rather mundane
>> >>>>>conclusion which can be summed up as follows: the
>> >>>>>continuant/occurrent distinction is basically a distinction
>> >>>>>between *how we use names* when talking about spatiotemporal
>> >>>>>entities. It should not be seen as a fundamental ontological
>> >>>>>distinction: it is merely a linguistic distinction between modes
>> >>>>>of expression. Things we call continuants are things for which
>> >>>>>we tend to use the same name at different times, so it is
>> >>>>>natural to encode changes to their properties by attaching the
>> >>>>>temporal parameter to their properties and relations rather than
>> >>>>>to them: we write things like
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>(inside Fritz Bratwurst Morning)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>but we don't tend to talk of Fritz having temporal parts.
>> >>>>>Special terminologies are used to distinguish these
>> >>>>>temporally-sensitive relations and properties: "fluents", "roles".
> > >>>>>
>> >>>>>Occurrents, on the other hand, are things that we do tend to
>> >>>>>speak of as having temporal parts or 'episodes', so it is
>> >>>>>natural to formalize temporally-relative talk of those entities
>> >>>>>by attaching the temporal qualifier to the name itself. If Fritz
>> >>>>>and the Bratwurst were occurrents, we might write
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>(inside (episode Morning Fritz)(episode Morning Bratwurst))
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>instead.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>So there is a distinction between continuants and occurrents
>> >>>>which is prior to our use of names -- for otherwise in virtue of
>> >>>>what would we attach the first kind of name to the first kind of
>> >>>>entity and the second kind of name to the second kind of entity?
>> >>>
>> >>>Simply from linguistic habit.
>> >>
>> >>If you apply term A to some sorts of things, and term B to other
>> >>sorts of things, then there has to be something about the As (the
>> >>things which get called 'As') and the Bs (the things which get
>> >>called 'Bs'), which allows us to make the assignment. It does not
>> >>seem to be entirely random.
>> >
>> >Not random, no. It may be rooted in the noun/verb distinction. But
>> >this, it seems to me, is a matter best left to the linguists. There
>> >is a case to be made, which you seem to think is obvious, that a
>> >linguistic difference must reflect an ontological distinction. (I
>> >think this is often assumed without adequate justification, and is
>> >often false. Thinking about the history of 20th-century English
>> >philosophy, one might call it the Oxford fallacy :-)
>> >
>> >>Moreover, it seems to be a habit which we all share, and are good
>> >>at exercising. Yet more evidence that there is some easily
>> >>apprehendable corresponding difference on the side of the entities.
>> >
>> >Or simply that we all speak the same language, or languages with a
>> >common ancestor and similar structure.
>> >
>> >But surely you do not think that a rigid, logically necessary,
>> >distinction can be based simply on a loose verbal habit?
>>
>>The issue is independent of the 'rigid, logically necessary', and in
>>any case points in the opposite direction. In virtue of what do we
>>reliably apply A rather than B (say to dead sheep lying in the middle
>>of the read) and B rather than A (say to incidents where trucks send
>>said sheep flying)?
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>>
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007
>>5:10 PM
>>
>>
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007
>>5:10 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007
>5:10 PM
>
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007
>5:10 PM
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (012)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (013)
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
9:42 PM (014)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
9:42 PM (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|