Dan, (01)
While I would agree that, say, the CAD model for a part
describes the shape of a part, the issue is not one of design but of
configuration management. In particular, the criterion for being a part
A123 is that it is fit, form and function identical to the "typical
part" A123. The design is an "ontological commitment" that some class of
thing exists (will exist). To reject this is to reject the concept of
"is-a" and of labelling things with the concepts they instantiate. (02)
Conversely, penguins do not stop being penguins just because some has
sequenced their DNA (written down their design). (03)
The fact that engineering systems are concerned with coming-to-be and
ceasing-to-be suggests that
engineering ontologies must use a temporal logic. In fact, many engineering
systems
are based on effectivities and change notices. The first explicitly
identifies what components
make up a product at a particular time or at a point in the product run,
while th second
controls when the definitions are changed. (04)
Sean Barker
BAE SYSTEMS - Advanced Technology CentreBristol, UK (05)
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Corwin
Sent: 01 September 2008 19:46
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Thing and Class (06)
*** WARNING *** (07)
This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an
external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message. (08)
No magic here, just typical abstract and concrete objects. (09)
Sean Barker wrote: (010)
> 2) The product of a design office is designs, instances of the general (011)
> mathom "design". In the DO, any class/type structure applied to a set
> of designs is a generalization of the set of design instances -
> designs are
> not classes for anything. (012)
A "design" is surely an object in the world of information.
It describes something, which you portray below as concrete. (013)
> The product of a manufacturing organization is parts, each of
> which is an instance of a design. (014)
Wrong. Each "part" may be based on the "design", but their
relation is described/describes, not instance/class. (015)
regards,
Dan Corwin (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
|