On Thu, September 27, 2012 08:20, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> 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)
Would you then consider an Animal or a Human as being a role of that
animal's body? (02)
-- doug foxvog (03)
>> -----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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|