Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping -4D?

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

From what I know,  Ontology deals with spacial related concepts upto 3D. 

 However there is need to take temporal or time related concepts into consideration.  So temporal ( time) inclusion makes it 4D.

In Enterprise architecture, When developing  future (to be)  architecture of businesses and systems and organization, one has to take time interval into consideration and the I have seen 4D concepts based on projections for future..
 For example, just taking years into consideration while developing ontology  for the same object - 2012 vs 2015 etc while projecting the solutions. Further example:   In 2012 - it may be Ontology for  unman space shuttle vs 2016 - 2 people navigated space shuttle !

Hope that clarifies the 4D concept!

 
--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Rob Freeman <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Rob Freeman <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 8:35 PM

Matthew,

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Matthew. You seem to be suggesting a theory capable of deriving all
>> the axiomatic set theories of maths which you call "4D
>> extensionalism". Am I right that you think it might be possible to
>> derive all of mathematics using this theory?
>
> MW: Maths is abstract and has nothing to do with 4D which is about
> individuals.

I don't see how this gels with your statement on Feb. 3.

<<<
RF> On 1) I agree. I just don't think it is possible to find a theory
> which will map between all other theories (see my post to Pat C asking
> him to find a FO for mathematics.)

MW: It is the search for such a theory that has lead me to 4D,
extensionalism of individuals and classes, and possible worlds, as used in
ISO 15926. I am quite happy to issue the challenge to identify some other
viewpoint that cannot be mapped into or out of it
<<<

"Some other viewpoint" seems to me to include all the theories of maths.

If you want to restrict your theory in some way which excludes maths
that's OK (although the proof for maths addresses all manipulations of
symbols, so is quite general.) But then it wouldn't address my point
to Pat C about FO.

Either way, I take it you are not contesting the impossibility of a FO?

-Rob

_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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)