[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:06:07 -0600
Message-id: <EAEC87D2-642D-4BA9-A6D4-8D7E45CABAD8@xxxxxxx>

On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Matthew West wrote:

Dear PatH,
OK, I've read all the way down. Now, let me respond. First, OK y'all have described your system quite tightly and thoroughly, which is good. But you are also stuck in a cul-de-sac, apparently paying no attention to the rest of the world, which is not good. You don't understand RDF and RDFS, which maybe isn't itself very important but I fear may be only a symptom of a deeper malaise.
[MW] Actually Ian is pretty good at the techy stuff, even if he does not explain it in standard philosophical terms.
You mis-use established terminology ("individual" here being the worst culprit: that isn't what everyone else means by "individual". 
[MW] That’s a bit vacuous. There is hardly any word that does not have a large number of meanings, and at least this is one of the meanings that individual has been used for.
Perhaps I should have said, throughout the literature on logic and knowledge representation. 
[MW] Not entirely, I have come across at least some who use individual for things that do not have members, as opposed to just a membership role in some set. I agree that some of those would admit abstract individuals like numbers, but I still don’t know a better word to use (and using spatio-temporal extent all the time is just too much of a mouthful).

Concrete individual? Extent? History? Im sure you could have come up with a new term which wouldn't have been so blatantly confusing. 

For example, the number three is an individual, but not one of yours.)
[MW] Well it doesn’t have a spatio-temporal extent does it?
Right, because having a spatiotemporal extent has nothing to do with being an individual. 
[MW] Only according to your usage.

According to just about all usages except yours. I know I am not in a minority here in my own field. 

Are things like vortices in a fluid, waves on the ocean, burstings into flame, explosions all Individuals?[MW] Yes
 (How does one kick them?) Is an acceleration an Individual? (Say my truck goes from zero to 30 in about a minute when I set off to work tomorrow. Is that acceleration an Individual? [MW] Yes
OK, take that acceleration: is it part of my truck('s history, ie my truck, in your extensionalist framework, right?)? But surely that particular piece of space-time, my truck during its acceleration, has other properties as well. Its not JUST an acceleration. Which part (?) or aspect(?) or type(?) of it is the acceleration itself? 
[MW] OK, the long answer. It is the individual that has the acceleration

Ok, so the acceleration is a property of the individual, right? Or do you mean something else by "has" as well? :-)

, but if you want to describe the acceleration value, it is the rate of change of the curve of the individual passing through space-time (it helps if you can imagine the space-time map for this example). It’s really just your calculus.

How does one kick it?)
(3)   You say a type is identified by its members, which I take to mean that if it has the same members, its the same type. That

sounds like saying that a type is a set. Is a type a set, in fact? [MW] Yes
If not, how do they differ from sets? If they are, are all sets types? [MW] Probably, but I’m not sure what the approach would be to ordered sets, like temperature or the real numbers.
An ordered set is just a set with an associated ordering relation, so it is still a set. You can ignore the ordering. But Im more worried about sets which seem clearly to not be types in any sense, such as sets of random things that are completely unrelated. If you want to say that all sets are types, why do you need the new word? Why not just talk about sets? 
[MW] I can only talk about ISO 15926 here. I have found that if you talk about sets, there is a very strong presumption that you are talking about ZF sets

Well, aren't you? What other kinds of set are there?


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>