[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:51:03 +0100 (IST)
Message-id: <1025.>
Pavithra wrote    (01)

> ...
> I agree, that  in Classes, one has to define the attribute as  "Name" and
> specify it as a character string which can have a value "Kermit"!     (02)

I prefer John Sowa's distinction, in which the name is not a character
string, but something that has a character string as a spelling.    (03)

> But for  people like me, who studied computer science, and Object Oriented
> analysis and design as part of graduate program couple of decades ago...
> find  using logic and axioms explicitly  too linear.     Too many
> statements, to say one thing.   We were taught to use theory in an
> implicit manner to prove the design..    (04)

But at some point, the theory needs to be defined.  Such a definition is
an axiom or set of axioms.  Once the theories are defined, they just have
to be stated as applying to your cases.    (05)

> ... multiplication tables ...    (06)

A multiplication table can be considered to be a set of axioms.    (07)

> It is the same thing about analysis and design.   Is it always necessary
> to give the detail explanation in linear way ?   To me, axioms and logic
> feels that way..   Computer design has advanced to recongnise abstract
> level of design.   The natural language processing and AI is still too
> linear..
> My point is,  if when a pattern is recognized and memorized, with
> appropriate techniques is it necessary to always give the detail
> explanation, unless to justify the correctness?    (08)

If you are using the pattern internally and not sharing it, then it is not
necessary to always give a detailed explanation.  However, if you are
sharing it, it is appropriate to share its detailed meaning so that other
potential users will be able to determine what you mean.  Unless you want
to perform the processing for everyone on the web who wishes to use your
pattern, you should provide the axiom(s) so that others may use them.    (09)

> Also I like to have a description of 4D example in English.. so we all can
> design and see how we differ..   Anyone has an example?    (010)

Consider modelling Socrates.
In 3+1 D,
* The starting date of Socrates is c. 469 BCE.
* The ending date of Socrates is 399 BCE.
* Between these two dates Socrates is a human male.
* Before c. 469 BCE Socrates does not exist.
* After 399 BCE Socrates is NOT a person.
* After 399 BCE Socrates does not exist.    (011)

In 4D
* Socrates is timlessly a 4D human male with spatial and temporal extent.
* The starting date of Socrates is c. 469 BCE.
* The ending date of Socrates is 399 BCE.
* Between these two dates Socrates is a living human male.
* Before c. 469 BCE Socrates exists as a future person, but is not alive.
* After 399 BCE Socrates is a historical person, but not alive.    (012)

> Thanks,
> Pavithra    (013)

> ...    (014)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (015)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (016)

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    (017)

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