On Jan 21, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote: (01)
> Ed
> 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.
>
> [LEO:] One alternative is to use a hybrid logic, where propositions are true
>at a given state or time, i.e., using nominals, and which extends
>propositional modal logic. This originated many years ago (Prior), but
>Gabbay's "labelled deduction" thread (where it was still multiple logics
>correlated at a meta-level) and "dynamic logic" brought it forward again in
>recent years (at least to my knowledge). Then Blackburn et al "pushed it down"
>into the object logic. Or another possible alternative is to use a "context"
>logic such as IKL. Perhaps microtheories ala Cyc. I agree that most
>non-ontologists have difficulties with 4-D. I do think an indexed ontology
>language would be useful, and suggested multiple indexing of ontological
>expressions in a short paper in 2005. I am not an expert in these topics, more
>of an interested observer, having come on these topics from natural language
>semantics. Probably Chris Menzel or Pat Hayes or John Sowa could tell you
>more. (02)
[AWT] Another continuation to hybrid logic is to add Propositional Attitudes
such as Beliefs (held in/over time). (03)
A motive for introducing beliefs is that business collaborations have multiple
participants each with their own knowledge and beliefs. What one persons belief
may be different from others. One may belief that the delivery was not made and
the other claim the goods was delivered. (04)
So a Dispute arise and continues with negotiations. The first person may still
believe that it was a late (or no) delivery but in an agreement with second
person its is agreed the delivery was made. (05)
It may also be of interest to differentiate analysis models from
models/ontologies that focus on contracts and business entities, events and
actualities.
In finance a category of models are defined as binary/trinary trees that
outline possible outcomes over time on order to calculate the preset value of
different scenarios. Should I deliver, or not, or deliver half and negotiate
penalties or... (06)
/Anders W. Tell (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|