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

[Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>]

At 5:47 PM -0400 3/20/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
    boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0BC3_01C88AB2.77A87680"
Content-Language: en-us

> PatH,
>   That¹s a very clear explanation,
> thanks much.
>   I¹ll be looking forward to
> seeing an implementation of the logic that has that kind of
> flexibility.
>

Well, we can do a lot of this straightforwardly in CLIF, but to really get hairy one would need a syntactic (and procedural) extension. I worked out quite a lot of it in a report I did for the Army a few years ago, but we didn't get a funding renewal, so it never got taken any further. If you are interested, you can read it here:

http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/ARLADA2004Final.pdf

PatH

> PatC
>  
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
> From:
> ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Pat Hayes
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:54 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> communication
>  
> At 3:35 PM -0400 3/20/08, Patrick Cassidy
> wrote:
> > PatH,
> >   There is an axiom provide by you during this thread which I
> > would like to
> > clarify:
> >
> >     >> (forall (x (t Time) P)(iff (P x t)(P (x
> > during t)) ))
> >
> >  I have not seen the two different syntactic expressions:
> >     (P x t)   and  (P (x during t))
> >  Used together before.  The first suggests a 3D perspective,
> > and the second
> > suggests a 4D perspective.
>  
> Yes, exactly. Think of this as a
> 'bridging' axiom, part of a translation specification, if you
> like.
>  
> OK, I'll come clean and tell you what
> I really think. There are a variety of notational options in
> combining a simple timeless assertion with a temporal parameter. One
> is to treat the time as a context, in effect attaching it to the
> entire sentence (or in IKL, proposition):
>  
> (ist t (P x y))
> (ist t (that (P x y)))
>  
> another is as an extra relational
> argument, giving the 'fluent' style which goes naturally with
> continuants:
>  
> (P x y t)
>  
> and a third is to connect it to the
> object(s) being related, the relation then being naturally understood
> as a relation between time-slices:
>  
> (P (x at t)(y at t))
>  
> But in fact, these are really all just
> notational variations on a single theme. They amount to choosing where
> in the parse tree of the simple _expression_ to attach the parameter, is
> all. If we simply FORGET the philosophy for a second, then we can
> treat this as an arbitrary conventional choice, and think of them as
> all meaning exactly the same thing, and therefore equivalent. Then it
> makes literally no difference if you say "At t, its true that P
> holds between x and y" or "P is true of x and y and t"
> or "P holds between the t-slices of x and y" , as these all
> mean the same. As to what exactly x and y are in this, I don't really
> care what your favorite philosophical answer is. Choose the philosophy
> you like best: but then be prepared to have your head exploded by some
> of the things that you might have to read. Maybe this is what you
> meant by 'dimension neutral', but I don't like that way of describing
> it, as I see them myself as inherently 4-D. Attaching the temporal
> parameter 'higher up' the tree is just a handy shorthand convention
> useful at times; but there are some things
>  
> (Q (x at t)(y at t'))
>  
> that just cannot be said any other way.
> So we have to have the 4D picture as a kind of base case; and once we
> have that, we really don't need the others (all of which are based on
> highly questionable philosophical foundations in any case. Trying to
> make actual physical sense of the notion of 'continuant' is just about
> impossible.)
>  
> This is a 'unified' ontology. But note,
> the result would not be acceptable to a confirmed 3D modeler;
> it is for example incompatible with the OBO foundational ontologies or
> DOLCE.
>  
> >   How would you describe the type that "x"
> > belongs to?
>  
> Type?? Do you mean, what kind of thing is
> it supposed to denote? Anything with an extension in space and
> time. This seems to me to be a basic ontological category. I'd say
> that if you are a 3D man, think of it as the union of continuants and
> occurrents; if a 4D man, think of it as a 4D 'worm' or
> history.
>  
> >   The way it is used in those expressions, it looks a
> > lot like the
> > "dimension neutral object" that I suggested as a way of
> > providing both 3D
> > and 4D perspectives in the same ontology.
> Possibly.
> >  In my case, however, I did not
> > use the (x during t) _expression_, but created a type "TimeSlice"
> > so that
> > time-slices (any temporal length) of 4D objects could be expressed in
> > an OWL
> > formalism.
>  
> Oh sure, any 2-argument function is
> basically trinary, so has to be re-manipulated to get it into a binary
> language like OWL.
> >    Is there a documentation somewhere that
> > additionally explains the
> > intended meaning and use of that type (of which "x" is an
> > instance)?
>  
> See above.
> PatH
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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)