ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "doug foxvog" Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:50:12 -0400
 ```On Wed, September 26, 2012 11:44, Andries van Renssen wrote: > John F Sowa on 26 september 2012 at 15:53 wrote: >> On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, Andries van Renssen wrote: >> ... >> > But the piece of land that is defined by that boundary is >> > nevertheless a physical object, and it has a mass, although >> > its value is unknown and not of interest.    (01) >> Space is physical, but it doesn't have a mass. An area is >> a two-dimensional region. The political subdivisions only >> specify coordinates that determine the area at the surface, >> and they are silent about depth or height.    (02) > [AvR] I hesitate about the mass of a physical space, and whether the gas > in a space is part of the space or just occupies the space.    (03) Occupies.    (04) > But if the space is > not empty, the mass may be of interest such as in the interior of a > balloon and a submarine.    (05) Sure.    (06) > ... > I question whether a physical area is by definition two dimensional.    (07) I'm not sure what you mean by "physical area".    (08) > Mathematical area's are two dimensional. But two dimensional area's in > physical reality seem to be abstractions. They are at least curved in the > third dimension.    (09) Fine. Math allows this. Iit also defines planar 2D areas.    (010) > But more important: if you walk on them, they compress > under pressure and they provide an upward force on you.    (011) The areas don't compress. The physical surface does.    (012) > If you buy them    (013) You don't buy an area (or volume). You buy physical land or part of a physical structure or rights to take certain actions within some volume (spatial or physical).    (014) > then you also possess a mass with volume below and a space above it,    (015) If you buy a physical object, then you own (a social property) the mass that comprises that object along with associated rights as defined by society.    (016) > although constrained nowadays by government rules.    (017) and before that by societal rules.    (018) > Although they are typically > defined in two dimensions only, their third dimension is recognized and > constrained by government rules (as you describe below).    (019) It appears that you are referring to plots of land here, not "two dimensional area's in physical reality".    (020) > This is related to the concept of 'surface'. A surface can have a > roughness, > a color, a hardness, a temperature, a strength, etc. I think that it can't > have such properties when it would be only two dimensional.    (021) One could certainly define such, e.g., the lat/long of its centroid.    (022) > We are probably > influenced by the abstract mathematical concept of dimensions. > In practical physics, every physical point has a size that is non zero, > although nearly infinitesimal.    (023) What do you mean by "physical point"?    (024) >> By fiat, the governments of countries lay claim to the mineral >> rights beneath their areas. In principle, they could claim rights >> down to the center of the earth. But in practice, the technology >> can only mine a few km. beneath the surface.    (025) >> When air travel became possible, national governments laid claim >> to the air space above them, but smaller governments did not. >> But nobody laid claim to the regions above the atmosphere. >> Those are more distinctions by fiat.    (026) >> In summary, I recommend that any ontology for any subdivision >> of the earth should specify the surface area S and the intended >> role R for that area.    (027) > [AvR] In some cases (e.g. mines, reservoirs) the subdivision of the earth > requires an explicit third dimension.    (028) Agreed.    (029) > And some, such as lakes and mountains, don't need a role.    (030) Huh? Wouldn't a lake/mountain have the roles of being part of some enitity's territory and some (other) entity's property?    (031) >> Then anything else that may be associated with the pair (S,R), >> such as the land, air, water, people, buildings, governments, >> should be specified as the X associated with the area S as >> considered in the role R.    (032) >> John    (033) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (034) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Godfrey Rust Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, doug foxvog Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, David C. Hay Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, David Whitten Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, David C. Hay Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, doug foxvog Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, David C. Hay Message not available[ontolog-forum] Enterprise Model Patterns., David C. Hay Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Andries van Renssen Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, doug foxvog <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, John Bottoms Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, doug foxvog