On 9/26/2012 9:16 AM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
> Then you agree with the author of the second paper?
>
> Robinson, Edward Heath. 2012. Reexamining fiat, bona fide
> and force dynamic boundaries for geopolitical entities and
> their placement in DOLCE. Applied Ontology 7 (2012),
> pp. 93-108, DOI 10.3233/AO-2012-0103, IOS Press. (01)
I haven't had a chance to read that paper. But I objected to the
distinction of fiat vs. natural boundaries as soon as it was published. (02)
In physics, everything is continuous. Some gradients are sharper
than others, but nothing in nature has a clearly defined or definable
0-thickness boundary. (03)
Just consider the human body. The boundary changes every time somebody
gets a hair cut, clips fingernails, takes a bath, puts on make-up,
removes contact lenses, or sheds a few skin cells. For legal purposes,
even clothing is considered within the body's boundary. (04)
If you admit clothing, you have to ask about the difference between
a wallet in somebody's pocket vs. a purse carried outside the boundary
of the clothing. What about a necklace that might be partly under
the clothing and partly outside? What about a backpack? If you admit
a backpack, what about a suitcase that somebody is carrying. If you
admit that, what about a cane? Crutches? A walker? A wheelchair?
A seeing-eye dog? (05)
The fundamental principle is that there is a reason for every
distinction. Those reasons are fundamental to ontology. Mereology
is useful. But the hope that it might provide "objective" criteria
for ontology is a fantasy -- an extremely *misleading* fantasy. (06)
John (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 (08)
|