[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "'[ontolog-forum]'" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:20:34 -0500
Message-id: <046a01c971df$532d6760$f9883620$@com>


   OK, I didn’t say or intend that the time theories could be *reduced* a one theory, just that they can be *described* by a small set of primitives.  What I meant by *described by* is, as far as I can tell the same as your  “expressed in terms of”.  I’m not sure if this changes anything else.





Patrick Cassidy



cell: 908-565-4053



From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Patrick Cassidy
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards



On Jan 8, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Patrick Cassidy wrote:


(6) [PC] >>  At this point we seem to be getting redundant.  I believe that these can all be described by a single set of primitives, and apparently PH doesn’t think so.   It can’t be resolved here, and needs to be the subject of a proper experiment.


[PH] > I know they cannot, and the 'experiment' is already done. Those various temporal theories can all be expressed in terms of three concepts: time-point, time-interval and duration. Duration cannot be reduced to the other two (there's a model-thoeretic argument in the paper) and the other two can be reduced to oine in some, but not all, of the theories. That gets you down to two or at most three concepts, known to be irreducible to smaller sets. And still, there are many variations possible in the ontologies.


I am getting confused here.  Your first sentence says the time theories *cannot* be expressed by a small set of primitives, and the seocnd sentence says they *can* be expressed by a set of three primitives.  I am clearly misundersanding something you are saying – we must be using words in different senses.


Well, I  am not sure what you are meaning. My point was only that your claim that all these various temporal ontologies can be 'reduced' to a single small set of 'primitive' concepts is pretty much meaningless, since they only use a small set already, so there isn't any more 'reducing' possible. Yet they are not compatible, and not reducible to one another. The way I have understood your argument, this is already a clear counterexample to your claims for the hypothetical single basic FO. Unless, of course, it simply does not refer to time at all. 





IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   

40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office

Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax

FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile

phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes





Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

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