A hole is not the same as a “nothing” – there
are two separate threads in this discussion: are we not talking about two different
“things” (I use the word advisedly and very cautiously)?
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Deborah
Sent: 18 September 2007 20:01
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] entity: nothing
Hi Paola -
The Cage analogy came around to silence being able to be bounded by sound.
Carved sculptures take away unwanted material until only the essential parts
remain. In museum design certain content is not ready to be named but it can be
classified, subject areas yet to be defined are left as blank, un-labeled
placeholders allocating space, hoping future requirements will fit without
rearranging everything again.
More to your point surely is John's statement "more like a boundary than pure
nothingness". So with the stretched metaphors above.....What do you think
needs to be bounded? What are opposite each other inside and outside the
boundaries? What could possibly be consistent across a range of ontologies?
What existing communication system like OWL, or ___, or ___, or ___ is best
suited to indicating a boundary? How do you know when you encounter a boundary?
Simply won't process? How do you "see" the holes and can you measure
how big or small they are?