Hans,
Your first paragraph gets to the heart of the difference between what we
as data modelers (cum ontologists) do and the world out there. A
representation of a geographic area in a model (as in a map) is, by
definition, idealized. It hopes to approximate a real piece of land
out there, and measurement technologies have improved incredibly in
recent years. But it is a model and not the real thing, as you
pointed out.
One thing it can do is to provide a reference when you are out walking
around trying to measure the actual stuff.
As for the School District example, i would not consider that a physical
object, either. It is way more complicated than that. You
have several things going on. You first have the Geographic Area
(I would call it a Management Area, since the boundaries are set
by the organization that is the School District Administration), which is
described by its boundaries, possibly in terms of the other geographic
areas, such as "precincts" that are included. There is an
Organization that is the "School District
Administration". And there are various Sites (also
known as Addresses or Facilities), that are the schools,
administrative offices, etc. Again, the concept of Address
is still an abstraction, which is sort of like the idea of the
"role" played by the location. I've always defined it as
"a place with a purpose.
Dave Hay
Site/Address/Facility is the intersect of Geographic Location,
Party, Physical Asset, and Activity. A particular
School, for example, is located at an Address, housed in a
physical building (Physical Asset), with children and teachers
(Persons) carrying out educational Activities.
At 09:59 PM 9/26/2012, you wrote:
Ed,
I guess I have a different perspective on this, based on my own
experiences
in the construction industry and property that I own, as well as in
military
information systems. In most cases, the boundary of a piece of property
is
not well marked and is not in general physically "sensible".
New technology
allows us to consult the relevant bureau of land records and find out
the
geospatial reference points that constitute the boundary and make
them
"visible" or let us virtually "sense" them via
cyberspace, but they are not
being sensed by phenomenology evidenced by the land in question, the
occasional surveyor installed steel rod notwithstanding. My point is
that
the identity and location of the piece land and the ownership of the land
is
a reality that exists primarily in the institutions that human society
has
created. If there is no fence or other physical marking, or it gets
cratered
by some natural gas explosion, you still own the land, thanks to the
bureau
of land records or equivalent local institution.
And it seems to me that treating a school district as a physical object
is a
shortcut for associating the conceptual reality of a specific school
district with a physical extent in geographic space explicitly. I'm OK
with
saying that a school district is a role that a particular physical piece
of
land might assume, but it's certainly not the only role that the same
piece
of land might assume, and there may be a multiplicity of school
districts
that the same piece of land might be a part of. And like I said in
my
earlier email, some school districts might not be geospatial in nature
at
all, but use some other characterization attributes to determine
membership/jurisdiction. So we need to be careful about the implicit
association of a conceptual entity such as a precinct or school
district
with a specific geospatial extent. Better to make that association
explicit
and dynamic (i.e., check current authoritative source in cyberspace
for
current boundaries before determining whether some piece of land is in
the
district). And if I had to make a list of roles that might be applicable
to
a given piece of land, membership in a school district or a precinct
would
not be first on the list.
Of course, there may be good pragmatic reasons in certain contexts
for
treating a school district or precinct as a physical object - but be
careful
that you don't assume it is a permanent role or a primary role for
that
physical object in other contexts, or that it is detectable by some
agent
through means other than accessing the defining source in
cyberspace.
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Barkmeyer, Edward J
[
mailto:edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:29 AM
To: Hans Polzer; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
Hans/Andries,
I think I should correct what I said. It seems to me that the issue
is not
so much what a 'physical reality' is, but rather what a 'school
district'
is.
It seems that Andries thinks a school district, and perhaps a country, is
a
plot of land that is a part of the surface of the earth. And in
that sense,
it is surely a physical reality. But I would define 'school
district' as a
political entity that is partly defined by reference to a plot of land,
the
other part being the notion of a jurisdiction and the purpose of the
jurisdiction. A political entity is not essentially physical. I would
say
further that this political entity might be the kind of 'augmented
reality'
that Hans talks about human society creating -- a mixture of physical
and
abstract concepts. And I would say that 'countries' are indeed the
same
general kind of thing, as Andries implies.
No one disputes that things like school districts are realities.
The sole
issue here is the nature of the upper ontology that leads to
classifying
them. And that is largely a matter of philosophical commitments
(and
knowledge engineering principles). Hans is suggesting a part of
one.
I don't personally think the nature of the boundaries of a plot of land
have
much to do with its essence. The boundary is not the imaginary
line; it is
it is a physical property of the plot of land, in much the same way that
a
table has an edge. It can be "sensed". Ancient land
boundaries might be
marked by streams or particular rocks or by a sighting between two trees.
We
now specify plots of land using physical measurements and logical
coordinates that are based on physical reference points,but we are
just
using this new set of sensory enhancement technologies to sense the
boundary. If we need to build a fence, we can sense exactly where it
should
be placed -- the boundary is not an abstraction. But that is my
preferred
ontology. Hans and Andries have their own.
-Ed
--
Edward J.
Barkmeyer
Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing
Systems
Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop
8263
Office: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD
20899-8263
Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
________________________________________
From: Hans Polzer [hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:55 PM
To: Barkmeyer, Edward J; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: 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
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|