Hi, (01)
in this paper
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/BittnerSmithDonnelly.pdf (02)
they made a quite complex formalization of granularity with at least
four part-whole connectives and types and labels. I'm not saying that
all those won't find a mapping when granularity is programmed in
applications, but as an introduction of granularity, that paper is
quite complex. After all, they apply their formalism on collections
such as: (03)
Fred's body={upper body, lower body}
upper body={left arm, right arm, ...,x}
lower body={left leg, right leg, ...,y} (04)
A finite model of ZFU or KPU suffices for those. And there are only
two part-whole connectives: member and subset. (05)
Avril (06)
Quoting "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>: (07)
> That's why I mentioned mereotopology. It's just one more tool. And
> there are indeed theories of granular partitions:
>
> Bittner, Thomas; Barry Smith. 2001. A unified theory of granularity,
> vagueness and approximation. In: Proc. of the 1st Workshop on
> Spatial Vagueness, Uncertainty, and Granularity (SVUG01).
> http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~bittner/BittnerSmithSVUG01.pdf.
>
> Bittner, Thomas; Barry Smith; Maureen Donnelly. 2007. The Logic of
> Systems of Granular Partitions. Manuscript.
> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/BittnerSmithDonnelly.pdf.
>
> Bittner, Thomas, and Barry Smith. 2003. A Theory of Granular
> Partitions. In: Foundations of Geographic Information Science, M.
> Duckham, M. F. Goodchild and M. F. Worboys, eds., London: Taylor &
> Francis Books, 2003, 117-151.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avril Styrman
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:42 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum] ; Rich Cooper
>> Cc: '[ontolog-forum] '
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> discrete mereology is the simplest flat collection theory. I inform
>> the list of a new article by Rom Harré: Behind the mereological
>> fallacy. Philosophy, 87(341):329–352, 2012.
>>
>> According to Harre p351-2 mereology’s lack of the ability to model
>> contexts has led to mereological fallacies, where contexts are
>> confusingly mixed:
>> “the brain is not a part of a person in the way that a grain of sand
>> is part of a beach. It is part of a person’s body and a person’s body
>> is not a part of that person in the relevant sense.” In contrast, when
>> a granular theory is used as a foundation of ‘part’, this
>> automatically makes the user to think more
>> carefully about the context under which the term ‘part’ is used: some
>> parts are flat, some are granular.
>>
>> Granular theories of course do not solve all problems, but they are an
>> advancement.
>>
>> -Avril
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> John Sowa wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed; it is the observer who decides what
>>> distinctions to apply, and that makes the
>>> observer's subjective ontology the appropriate one
>>> to use, not some so-called "objective" ontology.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even worse, no two people use exactly the same
>>> ontology, which is one of those things that make
>>> interpersonal communications so very faulty.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Rich Cooper
>>>
>>> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>>>
>>> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>>>
>>> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>>> Behalf Of John F Sowa
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:29 AM
>>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic
>>> Semantic Structures
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In physics, everything is continuous. Some
>>> gradients are sharper
>>>
>>> than others, but nothing in nature has a clearly
>>> defined or definable
>>>
>>> 0-thickness boundary.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> _______________
>>>
>>> Message Archives:
>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>>
>>> Config Subscr:
>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>>> orum/
>>>
>>> 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?WikiHomePa
>>> ge#nid1J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Avril Styrman
>> +358 40 7000 589
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> ______
>> 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
> (08)
--
Avril Styrman
+358 40 7000 589 (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)
|