Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate communication

[Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>]

At 6:08 PM -0500 3/12/08, John F. Sowa wrote:

> Dear Matthew,
>
> I intended to save the previous note as a draft, which I planned
> to finish later.  But I accidentally hit send instead of
> save.
> In any case, you responded to some important points, which should
> be resolved before we continue.
>
> JFS>> But for most applications, the most important ontologies
> are the
>  >> low-level ones that are often independent of the upper
> levels.
>
> MW> Not between 3D and 4D. It goes all the way down. I only
> wish
>  > that were not so.
>
> I agree that is true for some applications, but I seriously doubt
> that
> it is true for a large number of important applications.
>
> JFS>> For example, an airline schedule has lots of times and
> places,
>  >> but it is irrelevant whether the upper level uses a
> 3+1D or 4D
>  >> axiomatization of space and time or how the upper level
> defines
>  >> objects, people, and events.
>
> MW> No it is not.
>
> I very, very, very strongly doubt that the choice of a 3D vs 4D
> upper ontology would have the slightest effect on the design
> of a database for airline schedules, train schedules, and many
> similar applications.

The point is that this choice affects the way that temporally relative assertions can be made. This is more than just an ontological commitment that can be ignored: one cannot state any temporal facts without committing to some notational conventions. Where do you put the temporal parameter? In the relations or attached to the individuals?

> I'd like to hear any arguments to the
> contrary, but I doubt that
> a strong case can be made that a 4D ontology is a requirement for
> those applications.

Probably not for simple schedules, indeed. But for a maintenance scheduler you might well need it, when parts need to be checked according to the time they have have been in actual use, for example. Im sure Matthew has examples.

Pat

> MW> The point I was trying to make is that different peoples
> mental
>  > models are not the same, so there is no reason why they
> should
>  > easily agree on an ontology just because they share a
> common
>  > language to describe their mental models
>
> I very strongly agree with that point.
>
> John
>
>
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections

_________________________________________________________________
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)