[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Incompatibilities in 3D to 4D

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:12:33 -0400
Message-id: <5ab1dc970903121412t13ee5dedi77b463ddabe5c434@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Matthew,

[MW] heuristically I would expect logically equivalent to mean that everything that could be said using one theory could be said using the other. I don’t think this is true, so I think this is still too strong.[/MW]

We shall see i suppose. I suspect they are indeed mutually definably interpretable.

[MW] Exactly. Where there is no mapping, the lost knowledge is, more or less by definition, irrelevant in the other ontology. By the way I think interoperability is a good word to use for what we are looking for.

Good point. And yes, perhaps we should emphasize that they are mutually, fruitfully interoperable, leaving the establishment of full equivalence for academia? :P

[MW] Ah. But it doesn’t. That is what the 3D relation needs to have (when did it apply). In 4D the relation would simply between the states of the objects for which it was true, and the time element is derived from the start and end time of the state. You would also need to know which objects the states were temporal parts of of course.[/MW]

Ah thanks for the clarification; it looks like, as with any perspective, there is 4D + lots of variants. I was just thinking of how to enforce minimal "4Dness" in an ontology via axioms, but it appears what I proposed was too specific.

[MW] I’m not sure about meta-data, although that certainly comes into play when you are translating between different formalisms (how was that OWL statement rendered in CL). However, I expect that there is a high level mapping between 3D and 4D that can be defined for those things that both theories can say.[/MW]

I suggested metadata with an eye towards full definable interpretations. I imagined there might be some who would take philosophical issue with including certain types of information in their ontology, which would suggest to me that the natural place to locate the extra information which would facilitate full definability would be stored as metadata. If all we're after is interoperability via partial mappings, then yes you are right, keeping such metadata might be redundant.

(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,

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>