I've moved this to the Ontolog forum.
-- df (01)
> Doug, Thank you for this. As is probably obvious by now or will be by the
> end of this message I am not a practicing ontologist.
> I am struck by several presumptions and gaps in the Cyc example. (02)
I only provided a portion of Cyc's terminology. I did not provide any
rules. I only have a copy of OpenCyc, so i do not have access to the
rules. (03)
> Perhaps I just can't read right or
> perhaps these are not proper ontology stuff. As I
> said in the last track, I am not sure I am looking for ontology as the
> means for systemist interoperability. Perhaps I seek some
> yet-to-be-conceived semiotic transformer. (04)
> At any rate, humor me regarding the following:
> The example doesn't say where rain comes from. Mentions clouds
> but clouds are not rain or they wouldn't be "up there."
> I am looking for the notion of emergence. Rain happens after raindrops
> occur. Why do raindrops occur? (05)
This belongs in a Theory Microtheory, not a Vocabulary Microtheory.
The rules (if any) are not provided in OpenCyc. (06)
> And why snowflakes rather than raindrops? (07)
Same answer. (08)
> And why not mention fog as well? (09)
(comment #$Fog
"The collection of clouds (instances of #$CloudOfH2O) that cover a
#$GeographicalRegion at ground-level.") (010)
#$CloudInSky is a different subclass of #$CloudOfH2O. (011)
> And Relative Humidity? (012)
(#$comment #$RelativeHumidity
"... Instances of #$RelativeHumidity represent the extent to which the
atmosphere at a location approaches total saturation with water vapor. The
relative humidity of a location is indicated with the predicate
#$ambientRelativeHumidity.") (013)
> OBTW, rain water is not fresh. Raindrops condense on particles, every
> raindrop has one therefor rainwater is laden with particles (especially
> ones resulting from cloud seeding). (014)
Sure. OpenCyc does not seem to have the concept of cloud
seeding. (015)
> OBTW, Raindrops fall on me in Arizona while the sun is shining.
> No storm evident. (016)
Cyc certainly does not state that a storm is needed for any
precipitation. (017)
> Just an occlusion of a low and high pressure trough waaay up
> there. (018)
If Cyc has a theory microtheory that states that clouds
are necessary for precipitation, then you can certainly
add another theory microtheory that explains precipitation
forming without clouds. (019)
> I am not trying to be smart alecky here. It is just that systems work
> challenges you to think beyond the active entities and consider the not's
> as well. Otherwise Unintended Consequences are born. (020)
Of course. I merely looked at OpenCyc and provided a few of the
concepts they had dealing with rain & snow. I did not spend a
week generating an ontology of rain & snow. (021)
Cyc has both a WeatherMt and a WeatherProcessMt (along with
corresponding Vocabulary microtheories). I wouldn't be too
surprised if full Cyc had scores of statements about rain and
snow in these microtheories. (022)
I note that many standard types of rules now have "rule macro
predicates" so that what would normally take a rule to state can
be asserted in a single n-ary predicate statement. (023)
> I maliciously mentioned rain and snow because H2O has a triple point,
> vapor, liquid, solid depending on pressure, temperature, etc., Not all
> substances have such triple point. Methinks "SYSTEM" does which is the
> root of much confusion therefore a challenge for ontologists. (024)
As types of #$StateOfMatterChangeEvent, Cyc has #$Sublimating and an
inverse (#$SublimatingToSolid) as well as #$Condensing, #$Freezing,
and the others. It has the concepts of pressure and temperature
and units of measure for them. (025)
If you wish to ontologize this futher, be my guest. (026)
Regards,
doug (027)
> Thanks for your attention.
> Jack
>
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 10:58 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
>
>> Matthew West wrote:
>>
>>> I understand your view. How shall you handle rain and snow?
>>
>> Rain & snow refer to physical precipitation particles, the precipitation
>> in
>> bulk, the process that produces the precipitation, storms as events, and
>> storms as objects.
>>
>> Cyc's representation of these different, but related things (leaving out
>> comments and some additional statements) includes:
>>
>> (isa PrecipitationParticle ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls PrecipitationParticle Particle)
>> (genls PrecipitationParticle InanimateObject-Natural)
>>
>> (isa RainProcess ProcessType)
>> (genls RainProcess PrecipitationProcess)
>>
>> (isa SnowProcess ProcessType)
>> (genls SnowProcess PrecipitationProcess)
>>
>> (isa Rainwater ExistingStuffType)
>> (genls Rainwater (LiquidFn Water-Fresh))
>>
>> (isa SnowMob ExistingStuffType)
>> (genls SnowMob (SolidFn Water))
>>
>> (isa Snowflake ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls Snowflake PrecipitationParticle)
>> (genls (MobFn Snowflake) SnowMob)
>>
>> (isa Raindrop ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls Raindrop PrecipitationParticle)
>> (genls Raindrop Rainwater)
>>
>> (relationAllExists outputsGenerated PrecipitationProcess
>> (MobFn PrecipitationParticle))
>> (relationAllExists outputsGenerated RainProcess (MobFn Raindrop))
>> (relationAllExists outputsGenerated SnowProcess (MobFn Snowflake))
>>
>> (isa StormAsObject ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls StormAsObject InanimateObject-Natural)
>> (relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject CloudInSky)
>>
>> (isa RainStormAsObject ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls RainStormAsObject StormAsObject)
>> (relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject CloudInSky)
>> (relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject (MobFn Raindrop))
>>
>> (isa SnowStormAsObject ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls SnowStormAsObject StormAsObject)
>> (relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject CloudInSky)
>> (relationAllExists physicalParts SnowStormAsObject (MobFn Snowflake))
>>
>> (not (relationExistsAll doneBy PrecipitationProcess StormAsObject))
>> (comment
>> (not (relationExistsAll doneBy PrecipitationProcess StormAsObject))
>> "A StormAsObject would include Duststorms, which don't (necessarily)
>> include precipitation.")
>>
>> (relationExistsAll doneBy RainProcess RainStormAsObject)
>> (relationExistsAll doneBy SnowProcess SnowStormAsObject)
>>
>> (isa StormAsEvent ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls StormAsEvent ImmediateWeatherProcess)
>>
>> (isa RainStormAsEvent ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls RainStormAsEvent StormAsEvent)
>> (relationAllExists subprocesses RainStormAsEvent RainProcess)
>> (relationAllExists doneBy RainStormAsEvent RainStormAsObject)
>>
>> (isa SnowStormAsEvent ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls SnowStormAsEvent StormAsEvent)
>> (relationAllExists subprocesses SnowStormAsEvent SnowProcess)
>> (relationAllExists doneBy SnowStormAsEvent SnowStormAsObject)
>>
>> (isa SnowStormAsObject ExistingObjectType)
>> (genls SnowStormAsObject StormAsObject)
>> (relationAllExists physicalParts SnowStormAsObject (MobFn Snowflake))
>>
>>
>>> Jack
>>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:09 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>>>
>>>> The main problem here is one of different people using terms
>>>> differently. Hardly an ontological problem per se, but certainly a
>>>> problem that causes confusion in developing ontologies.
>>
>> This is always a problem for ontologists. The different meanings have
>> to be teased apart.
>>
>>>> Interestingly as a 4 dimensionalist I don’t recognise endurants at
>>>> all,
>>>> but I do recognise activities, physical objects, and participants.
>>>> Under
>>>> this world view all individuals (including activities, physical
>>>> objects
>>>> and participants) are spatiotemporal extents, and you discover that an
>>>> activity consists of its participants, where a participant is the
>>>> state
>>>> of a physical object that participates in some activity. So I
>>>> recognise
>>>> the things you talk about. However, I would assign the term “system”
>>>> to
>>>> the physical object the participant is a state of.
>>
>> I would not restrict the term "system" merely to physical objects. But
>> having multiple clearly defined concepts which different people use that
>> word
>> for in different contexts, is fine. They just need different URIs.
>>
>> -- doug
>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Matthew West
>>>> Information Junction
>>>> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>>>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>>>> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>>>> 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.
>>>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>> Subscribe/Config:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
>> Community Wiki:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
|