Hi Ed, (01)
Late delivery is a common business feature in financial contracts, such as
foreign exchange.
I have always treated the contract as describing a possible world - which
might be actual - and a late delivery (and a partial late delivery) as a
counter-part (in the actual world) of the delivery. (This is a solution you
indicate below).
In the case of your late shipment, doesn't the comment cash out as any
actual shipment made after now that is a counter-part of the
contracted/agreed shipment will be late. In this case, nothing changes
state. Maybe ur knowledge of the world changes states - however, as I said
in an earlier mail on this thread, that is epistemic. (02)
As you say, temporal words can sometimes be about temporal and modal
relationships. (03)
EB> The 4D idea that a thing in a different state is a different thing,
> and 'objects' are actually sequences (or more generally, lattices) of
things in
> states (04)
Just to be clear, some 4D approaches build up the 4D objects from their
states.
However, I think it is often simpler to take the objects as just 4D
simpliciter. If one wants to consider their states, then these are temporal
slices that are also 4D simpliciter. (05)
EB>, but it is totally out of
> line with the intuition of the domain experts. (06)
Jubien starts his book on properties with several examples of 4D talk in
everyday natural language. There seems to be a growing consensus that talk
about events and processes are naturally 4D. The first half of the football
match, etc. I'm sure football referees intuitions can stretch to first
halves. (07)
Chris (08)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
> Sent: 21 January 2011 18:39
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Rough Sets
>
>
>
> Christopher Menzel wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 2011, at 9:46 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> A standard distinction between a set and a class, is that membership
> >> in a [set] cannot change, while membership in a class can.
> >>
> >
> > I think it's useful to distinguish two claims when it comes to the
identity
> conditions of classes:
> >
> > (1) Classes are not extensional (i.e., distinct classes can have the
> > same members/instances)
> >
> > (2) Classes can change their membership.
> >
> > In the formal semantics of a number of KR languages, (1) is true but,
strictly
> speaking at least, (2) is not. Notably, classes in OWL are explicitly
non-
> extensional: since a class is stipulated only to *have* an extension in
OWL's
> formal semantics, nothing prevents distinct classes from having the same
> extension. The same is true of RDF. However, simply because there is no
> formal notion of change built into OWL's semantics, there is no
possibility,
> within a given interpretation, that a class change its membership. As
noted
> in an earlier message in this thread, without augmenting the notion of an
> OWL interpretation somehow, change can only be represented formally in
> terms of something like a series of interpretations that are thought of as
> temporally ordered. That said, (2) does seem to be a strong *intuitive*
idea
> in the KR, AI, and database communities.
> >
>
> The particular problem I have recently got involved in is the intrusion of
> temporal concepts into would-be ontologies in business applications.
> In the supply-chain area, for example, it is important to be able to talk
about
> schedules and shipments being "late". Getting past the indexical issues,
> which are fixed by translating the intuitive "now"
> into specific time relationships, the particular problem is that shipments
and
> orders do change state, and actions are taken on the basis of
reclassification.
>
> A major problem for us is that the industry folk throw these concepts into
> what was an ontology for the "snapshot" model of decision-making -- the
> state of the world at the time the decision is to be made. This gives
rise to
> formalizing ideas like "proposition X is false at time A and true at time
B."
> And that problem arises from the idea that states of things are
characterized
> by propositions, which seems to be fundamental to applications of
> ontologies. The 4D idea that a thing in a different state is a different
thing,
> and 'objects' are actually sequences (or more generally, lattices) of
things in
> states, is a means of producing a formal semantics, but it is totally out
of
> line with the intuition of the domain experts. They cannot then
"validate"
> the ontology -- they don't understand it.
>
> I have said in that forum that solving the problem is beyond my expertise.
It
> is my conviction that the problem is not really "time", but rather "change
of
> state" or "alternative states", and in that sense, "time" is a means of
labeling
> "alternative possible worlds".
>
> All we are saying is that the intuitive notion of change is endemic to a
lot of
> ontology applications. We can usually constrain the immediate application
> to avoid the problem or create a convenient work-around, but that usually
> means that the next application the business wants to use the ontology for
> requires re-writing it.
>
> -Ed
>
> "Mathematicians are like Frenchmen. Whatever you say to them they
> translate into their own language and at once it becomes something
> entirely different."
> -- Goethe
>
>
> > Finally, the idea that sets are extensional and classes are not is
definitely
> not standard among logicians and mathematicians, who typically associate
> the notion of class with theories like VNBG, wherein both classes and sets
> are extensional.
> >
> > -chris
> >
> >
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|