ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Sharma, Ravi" <Ravi.Sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:52:03 -0700
Message-id: <D09FFCFB3952074082D4280BC24EAFA89B7D54@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I do not mean to digress but want to interject that similar to time
representation, there is Space and there was some discussion in a
cursory way in the NASA Forum last week. Peter can kindly provide
details.    (01)

Here also Concepts and Background (depending on the context) could be
different. Space-time invariants play role at large distances or where
gravitational and quantum effects play a large role and interchanges
between them are possible.    (02)

Hence ontologies need a mechanism to list the background threads if this
topic has been deliberated, so that isolated interpretations from
newcomers such as me are not to intervene in already matured
definitions, ideas, threads and concepts.    (03)

One could start with 522k objects link given to us a few days earlier.
Or
At the simplest these can address
1. Physical universe, physical objects, physics, chemistry
2. Biological universe, life constituents, components, units, etc
3. Conceptual non-object universe with projections to above such as
mathematics, logic, metaphysics and philosophy.
4. Inner space and Human behavior (individual, conceptual, cultural, and
linguistic, etc....) and mind brain processes
5. Processes at large from changes in nature to ever-changing life forms
and human thoughts.
6. Integration with all categories above.    (04)

SPACE    (05)

Space-time conversions, Space intervals, when we say Washington DC do we
mean the whole District, Milestone or the National Capital Region,
accuracy-considerations, etc.. Near earth space, inertial frame of
reference, area, point or swath and or associated notions that it is the
US Capital, and the name of first president association, etc.    (06)

Thus for interoperability, one has some allowance and a frame of
reference within which concept (context) agreed to earlier by some rules
and communities can be executed, say if the match is to such point
accuracy (lat, Long) + or - deviations.    (07)

Can the same type of categorization help us simplify time
representation?    (08)

Thanks.
Ravi    (09)

(Dr. Ravi Sharma) Senior Enterprise Architect    (010)

Vangent, Inc. Technology Excellence Center (TEC)    (011)

8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 310, Vienna VA 22182
(o) 703-827-0638, (c) 313-204-1740 www.vangent.com    (012)



-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:55 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Time representation    (013)

John
thanks a lot, most important    (014)

Following on the fact that the ability of representing 'temporal'
properties may be desirable
in a semantic data model, does your conclusion recommend that IKL is
used as
representation of K (or data) on the web rather than RDF/OWL, or in
combination with rdf/owl
or what exactly shall we do?    (015)

thanks
PDM    (016)


On Jan 21, 2008 2:55 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On the CG forum, there was a question about representing time in
> conceptual graphs and OWL.  Since that topic may be of interest
> to people on this forum, I am forwarding the following copy of
> my response.
>
> John Sowa
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> There are many possible options for representing and reasoning
> about time.  Any of them could be used with conceptual graphs.
>
> OWL is an extremely limited subset of logic, which was not
> designed to accommodate time in a systematic way.  In fact, the
> purpose of OWL was to represent a limited subset of logic that
> is used for stating timeless relationships among the categories
> of an ontology.  Trying to add time to such a logic requires
> either a complete overhaul of the entire system or an ad hoc
> solution that is useful for only a single type of problem.
>
> In representing time, the first option is to choose between an
> explicit time or an implicit "temporal logic", which does not
> actually refer to time.
>
> Temporal logics avoid references to time by using operators
> such as 'sometimes', 'always', 'before', and 'after'.  That
> representation, which was developed by Arthur Prior (a good
> name for a philosopher who was writing about time), treats
> time as a kind of modality (with 'always' corresponding
> to 'necessity' and 'sometimes' to 'possibility').
>
> An approach with explicit time represents time with a linear
> coordinate system.  That raises more questions, whose answers
> require further distinctions:
>
> a) 4 dimensions or 3+1 dimensions?  A 4-D approach treats objects
>     and processes as connected regions of a four-dimensional
>     space-time continuum.  A 3+1 D approach treats space and time
>     as independent, but related, coordinate systems.
>
> b) Time points or intervals?  Using real numbers to represent time
>     coordinates implies that time is divisible into infinitely small
>     points.  But finite intervals with domain-dependent granularity
>     are more realistic.
>
> c) Contexts or extra arguments on relations?  If time is represented
>     by some coordinate system, how are those coordinates associated
>     with the other representations?  By attaching the time (and/or
>     space) coordinate to a context box or other delimiter that
encloses
>     the description of a situation at that time?  Or by adding another
>     argument to every relation to indicate the time when it is true?
>
> As an example of point (c), the relation HasPart(x,y) would say
> that x has y as part.  If parts can be added or lost over time,
> there must be some way to state when that relation is true.
>
> The first option specifies the point in time t of a situation
> when all the relationships happened to be true, including the
> fact that some entity x had some entity y as part.  The second
> option adds an extra argument to every relation; for example,
> HasPart(x,y,t).  The first option adds more complexity to
> the logic, but simplifies the description of each situation.
> The second option adds more arguments to every relation, but
> it does not change the underlying logic.
>
> This list of options illustrates why it is so difficult to
> handle time in RDF and OWL:  they have no way of representing
> contexts, extra arguments for time, or modal and temporal
> operators.  For a specific problem, some ad hoc solution may
> be possible, but there is no systematic representation.
>
> For further discussion, the following web page summarizes a
> taxonomy by Eric Sandewall with 2304 types of processes:
>
>     http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/process.htm
>
> The following paper describes how a representation with time
> (or other kind of index) attached to a context box could be
> mapped to a flat representation with the index added as an
> extra argument to each relation:
>
>     http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/laws.htm
>     Laws, Facts, and Contexts
>
> Common Logic does not make provision for delimiting a
> description and referring to it in some other statement.
> But the IKL extension to Common Logic does.  See
>
>     http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.html
>     IKL Specification Document
>
>     http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/GUIDE/GUIDE.html
>     IKL Guide
>
> The IKL language adds an expression type '(that p)' to
> Common Logic, where p is arbitrary sentence that states
> some proposition.  That expression maps to a CG context
> box of the following form:
>
>     [Proposition: p']
>
> where p' is the CG translation of p.
>
> Time does not apply directly to propositions, but to situations.
> In CGIF (Conceptual Graph Interchange Format), you could write
>
> [Situation *s] (PTim ?s, "20 January 2008") (Dscr ?s [Proposition p'])
>
> This says that there exists a situation s whose point in time is
> 20 January 2008 and whose description is the proposition p'.  It
> could be translated to the following statement in IKL:
>
>     (exists (s Situation)
>        (and (PTim s "20 January 2008") (Dscr s (that p))))
>
> By using "type coercion", the above CGIF could be abbreviated
> to the following form:
>
>     [Situation *s p'] (PTim ?s, "20 January 2008")
>
> Whenever a conceptual graph, such as p', is nested inside a box
> of any type other than Proposition, the default assumption is
> that the CG describes some entity of that type.  Therefore, this
> abbreviated notation can be expanded to the above CGIF statement.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>    (017)



-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************    (018)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (019)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (020)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>