ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Hans Polzer" <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:51:07 -0400
Message-id: <024c01cd9b89$66883600$3398a200$@verizon.net>
Andries,    (01)

I don't think I adequately answered your first question in my reply to Ed's
response to your email. We know that some geospatial extent is a school
district by recourse to an appropriate institution, most likely the school
board with responsibility for administering school districts in the
particular jurisdiction in which the property in question resides. As I
alluded in my original email, such an institution can change school district
boundaries on a whim, or through some institutional process, depending on
the nature of the society/governmental frame of reference under which it
operates. In the past, information about school districts might be
disseminated via school board newsletters and/or a map posted in city hall
or wherever the school board is headquartered. Increasingly today, that
information might be available via a web-site or even via some GIS data
services accessible over an internet connection. But there are usually no
physical signs or other detectable boundary markings posted  to mark the
district boundaries in physical reality. Note that multiple school district
frames of reference might be in play as well. For example, reference to
school districts typically assume/imply that they involve public schools.
But there may be alternate school districts for parochial or other school
systems, or even home-schooled children, each of which is grounded in a
different conceptual reality, created by the same or different institutions
with differing context and associated scope and frame of reference
assumptions. Also, as I alluded to in my original email post on this topic,
some school districts may not have a specific geo-spatial frame of reference
at all. Any institution that is significantly mobile with respect to
physical location may have school districts that are defined by the parts of
the institution they support rather than by where they are located in
physical space.    (02)

Regarding national boundaries, they are not detectable from space. We may
know that a particular river or wall/fence that is detectable from space is
a national boundary, but we use other information derived from and managed
by institutions to make that association. I might note that the Prime
Meridian and the entire WGS-84 (GPS) coordinate system is not detectable
from space either. It is only by adding information derived from human
institutions to the timing signals from GPS satellites that we can "see" the
coordinate system our institutions have created for the planet earth. NASA
has to do something similar for other solar system bodies so that it can do
repeatable operations/investigations of those bodies. What physical landmark
it might use to be zero degrees longitude is ultimately both arbitrary and
pragmatic. Gaseous planets are more problematic for mapping this conceptual
reality frame of reference to the physical reality of the planet (but also
generally less important operationally).    (03)

Hans    (04)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andries van
Renssen
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:20 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures    (05)

Hans,
You state that things that have boundaries that cannot be detected by
physical means, such as a 'school district', are conceptual realities and
not physical realities.
How do you know that a school district is a reality and not only an idea? I
assume, because you can point to such a district in the real physical world.
Your argument is that the boundaries are not physical phenomena, but they
are defined by human decision or agreement only.
I understand that, and I agree that such boundaries are not measurable
physical objects, but the area's within such 'boundaries by agreement' are
nevertheless physical. (and it might even be possible to point to the
boundaries in physical reality, because we know where the boundaries are).
Otherwise countries and yards would not be physical either, because the
boundary of my yard is contractually defined and there is no physical
boundary with my neighbor's yard; and a wall would be physical, but the left
hand part of the wall would not be physical?? That sounds as odd
consequences.    (06)

Therefore, I think that such things are physical objects (or roles of
physical objects), which boundaries are defined by human decisions.    (07)

Regards,
Andries    (08)

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum- 
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
> Verzonden: maandag 10 september 2012 20:46
> Aan: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> 
> On Thu, September 6, 2012 19:58, Hans Polzer wrote:
> > .... I've made note of
> > this issue in past emails to this forum regarding the notion of 
> > "conceptual reality" being distinct from physical reality. A school 
> > district or
> police
> > precinct doesn't exist in physical reality - there are no physical 
> > phenomenologies that can be used to "detect" or "sense" such an
> object.
> > Sure, such a conceptual object can be mapped to some geospatial
> extent -
> > although some "districts" might not be geospatial at all - but
> evidence
> > for its existence is manifest only on paper (or cyberspace), and can 
> > be changed on a (institutional) whim. It is a creation of society, 
> > and no
> physical
> > entity is directly affected or modified in any way by its creation.
> 
> Well stated.
> 
> -- doug foxvog
> 
> > Hans
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andries
> van
> > Renssen
> > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:40 PM
> > To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> >
> > Doug,
> >
> > Why is a school district not physical? In my view it is a physical
> area on
> > earth with an (unspecified) height and depth.
> > Physical object (and spatial objects) cannot be located in
> themselves, but
> > they all can be in (several) locator as well as in located roles,
> although
> > always in different (individual) relations.
> >
> > I am interested in your subtypes of the <being location in> kind of 
> > relation.
> >
> > The kind of relation <classification of an individual thing by a 
> > kind
> of
> > thing> is semantically different from the kind of relation 
> > thing> <classification
> > of a kind of thing by a meta kind of thing> as the role players are 
> > different.
> > In the example, the relation <is classified as a> is a phrase for 
> > the first kind of relation.
> > Furthermore, the statement is that all individual things 'shall be'
> > classified, whereas that is not required for kinds of things. Kinds
> of
> > things shall not necessarily be classified, but 'shall be'
> generalized, by
> > being defined as subtypes of their supertype(s).
> > Therefore, the term 'individual' is an important semantic
> distinction.
> > If we eliminate it the semantic precision would be lost.
> >
> > In the other case of the use of 'individual' the sentence was taken
> out of
> > contexts, because the original text talks about two basic semantic 
> > structures, one for facts about individual things and another for
> facts
> > about kinds of things. So also here the term 'individual' marks an 
> > essential semantic distinction.
> >
> > I agree that a taxonomy is a hierarchical subtype-supertype network.
> >
> > I also agree that each individual thing can (in principle) be
> classified
> > by
> > more than one kind of thing.
> >
> > With kind regards,
> > Till after my holidays,
> > Andries
> >
> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum- 
> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
> >> Verzonden: donderdag 6 september 2012 7:29
> >> Aan: [ontolog-forum]
> >> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> >>
> >> On Wed, September 5, 2012 12:47, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >>
> >> > What's not to like about this excerpt:
> >> >
> >> > "In its simplest form, this is a structure that is also supported
> by
> >> > technologies, such as _RDF_ and _OWL_. However, a semantic model 
> >> > includes the following semantic extensions that support an
> improved
> >> > computer interpretation of such sentences and an improved
> >> computerized
> >> > verification of semantic correctness:
> >>
> >> Fine.
> >>
> >> > * Each kind of relation has a modeled definition. Those semantic 
> >> > definitions of the relation type includes the definition of the
> >> required
> >> > kinds of roles and the allowed kinds of players of such roles.
> >>
> >> Fine.
> >>
> >> > For
> >> > example, the relation type <is located in> requires a physical 
> >> > object
> >> in
> >> > a 'locator' role and another physical object in a 'located' role.
> >>
> >> There are many kinds of "is located in" relations which are useful
> to
> >> tease apart.  A more useful, more generic, form would require a 
> >> spatial object in both the 'locator' and 'located' role.  Non-
> physical
> >> spatial objects (such as school districts or police precincts) 
> >> could be in either the 'locator' or 'located' role with such a
predicate.
> >>
> >> I would suggest that the example refer to a "spatial object" 
> >> instead of a "physical object".
> >>
> >> > * Each individual thing is classified by a kind of thing, because 
> >> > the meaning of a relation between individual things can only be
> >> interpreted
> >> > correctly when each related individual thing is classified, as
> well
> >> as
> >> > the roles they play and the relation they have.
> >>
> >> I would strike the word "individual", since kinds of things (e.g.,
> >> CanusLupus)
> >> can also be classified by kinds of (meta) things (e.g., 
> >> BiologicalSpecies).
> >>
> >> I would also clarify this by noting that each thing can be
> classified
> >> by one or more kinds of things.
> >>
> >> > * The kinds of things are defined by at least a relation with
> their
> >> > supertype kinds of things,
> >>
> >> Fine.
> >>
> >> > thus forming a taxonomy of concepts (a
> >>
> >> The word "taxonomy" suggests a tree structure.  This should be 
> >> clarified to make clear that a directed acyclic graph is a valid 
> >> specialization hierarchy.
> >>
> >> > specialization hierarchy, also called a subtype-supertype
> hierarchy).
> >> > This is necessary for the interpretation of the meaning of the 
> >> > classifiers (city, tower, and 'is located in', as well as
> 'locator'
> >> and
> >> > 'located').
> >>
> >> > This results in a universal basic semantic data structure for the 
> >> > expression of facts about individual things."
> >>
> >> Again, i'd strike the word "individual".
> >>
> >> -- doug foxvog
> >>
> >> > Source: http://www.gellish.net/topics/semantic-modelling.html .
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Kingsley Idehen
> >> > Founder & CEO
> >> > OpenLink Software
> >> > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog:
> >> > http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> >> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> >> > Google+ Profile:
> https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> >> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _________________________________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (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    (010)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (011)

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