Sean, (01)
> As an aside from my discussion with Pat Hayes on geometry and topology,
> I wondered whether the discussion on time was actually discussing two
> *ontologies.
>
> Firstly, a time *topology, which is invariant under transformation and
> scaling, and covers concepts like before, during, recurring.
>
> Secondly a time *geometry, which covers concepts like date, interval,
> accuracy.
>
> Would separating these out into separate system, and then defining
> *functions relating the time *geometry to the time *topology make the
> *ontology more straightforward? (02)
What do you mean by "separating ... out"? In the OWL-Time write-up,
the topological properties and the clock/calendar system are in
different sections (with durations between them). But it sure does
help in axiomatizing the clock and calendar to have already
axiomatized topological concepts. I think you'd have to do a lot of
duplication if you tried to do both completely independently. (03)
> And also, is there a good term for *ontology, meaning an ontology
> constructed from a particular viewpoint, and carefully leaving a
> different viewpoint to construct its own *ontology, but which can/may at
> a later point be imported into some unifying world theory? (04)
How about "ontology"? (05)
> .... And are there
> good guidelines for making such design decisions? (06)
If you keep a lot of alternatives in mind as you're constructing your
ontology and don't make a lot of arbitrary decisions that close off
possibilities, it helps. (07)
-- Jerry (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|