ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Andries van Renssen" <andries.vanrenssen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:20:38 +0200
Message-id: <01e901cd9caa$817da180$8478e480$@vanrenssen@gellish.net>
Hans,
The concept 'boundary' is a kind of role. Such a role can be played by a 
physical object.
Such a role playing physical object can have various roles simultaneously. 
You make a distinction between a physical object and (its?) multiple 
'conceptual realities'. Your concept called 'conceptual
reality' seem to be more or less equivalent to the concept 'role' or its 
subtype 'usage'. Whereas your use of the concept
'surrogate' seem to be equivalent with the relation type <can play a role as a> 
between role player and played role. 
Other people have created similar concepts, called 'functional physical object' 
or just 'functional object' or 'functional location'
(e.g. in the SAP system) with a similar purpose.
In my view roles and a taxonomy of kinds of roles should be used instead. 
When we distinguish between the object and its roles as two different things, 
then there is no need to talk about a different object
for each role, but about different roles played by one role player.
Then the role playing object is not dependent on the view or context, but some 
roles (and accompanying relations) are only relevant
for particular views and contexts whereas the role player is relevant for all.    (01)


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens
> Hans Polzer
> Verzonden: woensdag 26 september 2012 2:55
> Aan: edbark@xxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> 
> Ed,
> 
> You surmise correctly that my definition of physical reality is that which
> is capable of being sensed through physical phenomenology (but not just by
> our five senses).  I make this distinction from conceptual reality, such as
> school districts, property lines (which may have physical surrogates, such
> as fences, walls, etc.), because in the world of systems I was involved with
> there was a tendency to try to rely on physical sensors (e.g., radars,
> optics, chemical, temperature, etc.) to form a "picture" of reality for the
> purpose of understanding and then acting on that reality to achieve a
> desired outcome. The problem is that society/institutions have created
> important aspects of reality that are not detectable through such
> phenomenology ( e.g., radar, optics, chemical, temperature, etc.) to form a
> "picture" of reality for the purpose of understanding and then acting on
> that reality to achieve a desired outcome. The problem is that
> society/institutions have created important aspects of reality that are not
> detectable through such phenomenology. Therefore, systems must access other
> data sources (i.e., not physical sensors) to form a picture of reality that
> is complete enough for their purposes. This is the drive behind recent
> efforts to create "augmented reality" apps that allow information available
> only in cyberspace to be superimposed on views of physical reality using
> computer generated graphics. Examples include displaying historical
> information about a building or site that one might be looking at through a
> camera viewfinder, or who the current owner might be. Note that this
> technology can also be used to make physical reality more visible than it
> might otherwise be, such as displaying underground utilities or the soil
> composition.
> 
> The key point here is that human society (typically via institutions)
> creates realities that are not detectable through phenomenology/sensors. In
> the past this conceptual reality was relatively private, recorded on paper,
> and difficult to access by the general public. The internet revolution has
> increasingly made this reality more broadly accessible - and perhaps more
> frighteningly - more controllable/changeable  over a network connection
> (think Identity Theft, for example). Of course, the internet revolution is
> also making physical reality more broadly accessible, and in some cases,
> changeable - also potentially frightening (think Stuxnet).
> 
> Andries,
> 
> Yes, the wall or fence of a piece of property is a physically detectable
> boundary - but you can't tell from the physics of the wall or fence what the
> boundary represents, or even if it is a boundary in a particular conceptual
> reality (walls and fences are built for all kinds of reasons and may not
> represent current conceptual realities of, say, property lines or the
> perimeter of a planned garden). One of the key issues here is that while
> some conceptual realities are detectable in physical reality through
> surrogates such as fences and walls, any given physical reality may comprise
> (must comprise??) multiple conceptual realities, typically in different
> contexts. A piece of property may be part of a school district, it may be
> playground, part of a watershed, a voting precinct/ward, a bus route stop, a
> wildlife habitat, a terrorist target, etc., all simultaneously. Which of
> these is operative depends on the context of whoever/whatever is referencing
> that particular piece of property. If one attempts to associate a particular
> piece of property in physical space with any one of these conceptual
> realities exclusively (which may information systems strive to do), there
> will be an interoperability problem with systems that reference that same
> piece of property to a different conceptual reality and associated context.
> Typically such problems are resolved by recourse to some "context-neutral"
> frame of reference, such as GPS coordinates that both system use to
> determine whether they are talking about the same piece of property or not.
> But "context-neutral" is in quotes for a reason. I'll note in passing that
> the Space Shuttle has three different definitions of altitude that it uses
> depending in its operating context - distance from the center of the earth
> (for orbital operations), elevation above mean sea level (for ascent and
> re-entry operations), and elevation above ground/surface (for landing). No
> word on what would happen if the Space Shuttle were to take off/land on a
> body other than the planet earth. The implicit assumption of earth-only
> contexts are likely to be pervasive throughout the Shuttle systems.
> 
> Hans
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:00 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
> 
> 
> 
> Andries van Renssen wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Therefore, I think that such things are physical objects (or roles of
> > physical objects), which boundaries are defined by human decisions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andries
> >
> 
> It seems to me that this is an argument about the denotation of an undefined
> term.  The problem here is whether 'physical reality' means "something that
> can be sensed with one of the five senses", which I took to be Hans'
> definition, or not.  If 'physical reality' has that definition, a 'school
> district' is not a 'physical reality', whatever else it might be.  Andries
> has a different definition for 'physical reality', but he has not stated it.
> So we cannot consider whether 'school district' satisfies it.
> 
> I am simply applying Kilov's Razor:  "I will not agree with anything you say
> unless you define your terms."
> 
> -Ed
> 
> 
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems
> Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                Cel: +1 240-672-5800
> 
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,  and have
> not been reviewed by any Government authority."
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >> -----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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>     (02)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (03)

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