Translations to CLIF using the above ontology:
>> at t1, Kermit egg.
(exists (p t1) (and (namedEntity p "Kermit") (egg p)
(coord 4 t1)))
>> at t2, Kermit tadpole
(exists (p t2) (and (namedEntity p "Kermit") (tadpole
p) (coord 4 t2))).
>> at t3, Kermit frog.
(exists (p t3) (and (namedEntity p "Kermit") (frog p)
(coord 4 t3)))
I claim that these observations can be used in either a 3D or a 4D
theory. Furthermore, I claim that any predictions made by either of those
theories that can be expressed in terms of the above ontology will not conflict
with any predictions made by the other theory that are similarly restricted.
MW:
Yes, but they are not terribly useful. What I am missing is whether these observations
are about the same egg/frogspawn/frog or different ones that just happen
to be named Kermit.
MW:
What I would expect to see is some relation that affirmed this. For 3D this
would be some identity relation and for 4D this would be a temporal whole/part
relation. I’m not quite sure how you make a relation ambiguous enough
that it could be either.
Regards
Matthew
West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered
in England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden
City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.