That’s why most upper/foundational ontologies have endurants/continuants and perdurants/occurrent, and some indeed treat both 4-dimensionally, so that you can
think of John (John’s identity) as a kind of spacetime worm, i.e., everything is a perdurant (except that some formal ontologists will cut these notions a bit differently).
I’ve found the following to provide a good discussion of the issues:
T. Sider. Four-Dimensionalism. An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2001.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of William Frank
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:32 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands
I am especially interested in your mentioning Donald Davidson as a source for "Treating Events as First Class Entities."
Computer science mostly seems to have taken the position that only the entities that are primarily nouns in Indo-European lanaguages should be regared as entitites.
On grounds of practicality, this is unlikely a good approach, for, as what started this thread, the organization of the things that we ask services to do (peform actions) is almost as important as what we ask them to do it to (some passive data entitites)
On grounds of fundamentals, which when ignored, tend to lead to practical problems later, it is unlikely that just because some group of people tend to *view* certain sequences of observable phenomina as representing a "Thing" and others of them as representing
an "event" is not, to me, a difference in kind. In both cases, we can make more than one observation over time, and say, that is the same walk that Sebasitan has been on for the last hour, this is the same hurricane he was walking in, as easily as that is
the hat he is wearing. I do seem to vaguely recall that there are northwest North American Indian languages that do not make any distinction between these kinds of cases. "Being John Malkovich" and "being the eating of a salmon by a bear" are, in this language,
each regarded as "things" or alternatively, are both regarded as "events" (since no difference is made between the two). Both events take some time, one event simply take much longer than the other. Perhaps the difference is really only in the number of
relations that are required to define the event as it is thought of. Three for the eating, only one for John.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Heh - Haven't heard that mentioned in a while;. I always had the impression that KQML sort-of fizzled out; I don't think anyone was working with it when I was at EIT 94-95.
I am notifying the subscribers of this list of a few sources that might be useful to them (there are several different topics that have come up on this thread by typing <<
The foundational work on speech acts is John Austin's "How to do things with words." (Austin 1962). John Searle aso wrote on the subject.
An important work on actions and events is Davidson's "Essays on Action and Events". (Davidson 1980). Good commentaries can be found in LePore, E. and McLaughlin, B. P. , eds. (1988).
The Davidsonian approach treats events as first class entities. We can represent the meaning of "Sebastian walked in Bologna at midnight" as a series of statements:
There is a Walking, Walk1.
A walker in Walk1 is Sebastian.
A location of Walk1 is Bologna.
A time of Walk1 is midnight.
An advantage of using this approach as compared to using predicates with an argument for each adverbial modifier of the walk is that the number of such modifiers, (and hence the number of predicates of different
arity) can be unbounded, and it is not clear how to generate the necessary entailments - for example, that someone walked in Bologna at midnight; that Sebastian walked in Bologna, etc.
Wordnet -
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ - contains a hierarchy of verbs; however Wordnet is not not an ontology, and there are known issues in the hierarchy (see e.g. Richens 2008).
Cyc uses a Davidsonian model of events;
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words : the William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Clarendon Press ;, Oxford.
LePore, E. and McLaughlin, B. P. eds. (1988). Action and events : perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson. B. Blackwell,, Oxford, UK ;New York, NY, USA.
Richens, T. (2008). Anomalies in the wordnet verb hierarchy. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics-Volume 1, pages 729–736. Association for Computational Linguistics. Available at:
http://aclweb.org/anthology-new/C/C08/C08-1092.pdf
>>
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
William Frank
413/376-8167
This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees only.
It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
without the permission of the sender.
|
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|