[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] 3D+1 (was presentism...was blah blah blah)

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:55:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <50034.>
On Fri, February 4, 2011 12:25, Wacek Kusnierczyk said:
> On 2/4/11 11:10 AM, Yu Lin wrote:
>>> What I said was that I don't know what the timestamp you mention would
>>> be:
>> Sorry,
>> An instance in BFO has a timestamp.
>> For example:
>> In BFO, a Patient has a Quality of Elevated Temperature. (Capital
>> letter in the first letter means the Class) [in this statement, all in
>> class level, so there is no timestamp]
>> for instantiate :
>>   1. Mary (instance of Patient) had a temperature measured as 100F at
>> 16:43:00 2001/01/11
>>   2. Mary (same instance in 1) had a temperature measured as 90F at
>> 12:00:00 2001/01/12    (01)

>> I hope I make it clear for you.    (02)

> Not really.  If *every* instance has a timestamp,    (03)

The example suggests that what was meant was every statement instance --
or possibly every temporal statement instance.  Yu Lin did not claim
that *every* instance has a time stamp.  If *every* instance of *every*
class had a time stamp, your statement below would be included.  However,
that does not appear what Yu Lin meant.    (04)

>  I'd expect something like    (05)

> (Mary at t) has (a temperature 100f at t)    (06)

This would be a 4D statement.  The provided statement was a 3D statement.    (07)

> because that temperature seems to be, in this framework, an *instance*
> of the class Quality of Elevated Temperature.    (08)

That class is not a temporal class and so should not have a timestamp.    (09)

>> PS: I just know a little bit about logic. I have searched "IKL logic".
>> There is a slide of Pat on internet.
>> http://www.slideshare.net/PatHayes/ikl-presentation-for-ontolog (3
>> years ago)
>> I hope our communication can talk more on ontology as someone
>> mentioned in another mail.
> We can probably quite successfully *talk* about ontology without any
> knowledge of logic, but as you set off to *formalize* your ontology --
> and this seems to be your goal -- not knowing logic is rather an
> obstacle.  (That's why I'm not doing ontology, for that matter.)
>    (010)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (011)

"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.
=============================================================    (012)

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    (013)

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