On Sun, December 16, 2012 17:12, Hans Polzer wrote:
> ... I just want to clarify one
> point regarding the conceptual flight object. It is not a type or class of
> any old flight. It is very specific to two end points and a particular
> airline and time slot. (01)
This can certainly be modeled, whether for classes or individuals. (02)
> There are institutional contexts in which such flight
> objects are originated/planned and negotiated and managed/altered and
> disposed/terminated as distinct individuals. (03)
As distinct, sure. But this does not require their being individuals.
The only utility for specifying that something is an individual, is to
specify that it can have no instances. (04)
> Is the airline going to get
> that weekday AM flight slot from Washington Reagan to Myrtle Beach or
> isn't it? (05)
A repetitive flight slot is an individual. So is a one-time flight slot.
A relation relates instances of the second to instances of the first. A
relation between either type of flight slot and a conceptual flight object
(c.f.o.) or an actual flight object, is useful whether or not the c.f.o is
an individual. (06)
> Or maybe only for the fall and spring months? Indeed, the SME
> discussion was about
> what the class of all such individual conceptual flight objects (07)
Again, why the emphasis on "individual"? (08)
> should look like - as opposed to the physical flight object instances
> involving actual airplanes and crews which were already managed as
> individuals in the current national air traffic management systems. The
> main purpose was to support longer term air traffic and terminal demand
> management and to better deal with weather-induced or other major
> disruptions (09)
They should certainly be modeled. (010)
> I'm having difficulty understanding why you think these conceptual flight
> objects are not individuals readily distinguishable from other such
> conceptual flight objects in such a context. (011)
They would be distinguishable instances of "conceptual flight object"
whether or not those instances were individuals. (012)
> How would the managers/negotiators be able to tell which one
> they are dealing with if they aren't individuals? (013)
Why should that make a difference? Being an individual is a feature of the
external world, not of the computer program or the ontology. (014)
> Maybe you could elaborate? (015)
The question is what a "conceptual flight object" is. If it is a
specification, then it can have no instances, and is an individual. If it
is a group of actual "flight objects", then it also is an individual. If,
however, it is a type of event, such that individual "flight objects" are
instances of some "conceptual flight object", then it is a class/type, not
an individual. (016)
If the conceptual flight object is a specification, then subrelations of
general relations such as situationIntendedToConformToSpecification,
situationConformsToSpecification, etc. would relate actual flight objects
to the conceptual flight object. Other concepts such as
ViolationOfASpecification, with appropriate relations could be used to
specify how an actual flight object deviates from a conceptual flight
object which it was intended to follow. Similar rules and relations could
be defined to relate the properties of an actual flight object to a
conceptual flight object, if it were an instance of the c.f.o. (017)
The more i think about it, the better it seems to me that a c.f.o. be
modeled as a specification instead of a group or type/class of flights.
This would change the meaning of "conceptual flight object", but could
make the modeling easier. (018)
The advantage that i see is that relations and rules stated at the
specification level could be reused in other domains. Also, other
ontologies that have already modeled specifications could be reviewed for
applicable relations and rules. (019)
-- doug foxvog (020)
> Hans
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Behalf Of doug foxvog
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:00 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals
>
> On 12/15/2012 10:29 PM, Hans Polzer wrote:
> > Remember that the conceptual flight object also has a life cycle, not
just
> > the individual flight instances. And it is specific to an airline or
other
> > institution and to the starting and ending locations, day/time slots,
and
> > must be authorized by the different terminal institutions involved (e.g.,
> > gate and take-off slots), not just the airline or FAA-equivalent. So each
> > flight conceptual object is a separate individual just as much as the
> > flight instances within each flight object are. (021)
> Just because something has properties, it doesn't mean that that thing is
> an
> individual. A "conceptual flight" which has daily (or n times per
> week/month) instances seems by definition to be a type of thing. It is
> also an instance of a meta-class ("conceptual flights"). Just like
> "species" is a meta-class with instances (such as "dodo") which have
> properties -- time of first and last instance, natural (spatial, height,
> weight,...) range, lifespan, etc. -- some of which are timeless and other
> which change with time. (022)
> This may be a problem in OWL-DL, but even OWL-Full can express this. (023)
> > Part of the 4D evolution of the conceptual flight object is how many
> > instances of individual flights occurred or were cancelled and when they
> > occurred. It could also change departure/gate slots or code shares over
> > time. Note that a code share is essentially a merger of (or
> > superposition?)
> > two conceptual flight objects (from two different airlines) with the same
> > flight instance serving both. (024)
> Sure. The same flight instances are instances of both conceptual flights
> (at least when there are some people on the flight who booked with each of
> the different conceptual flight objects). A code share is a separate
> class which has flights as instances, and temporal relations with the
> conceptual flights that it is sharing. (025)
> > Some other identity issues that arose which I did not mention in my
> > earlier
> > post were those of "containerization" and "docking/separation". Generally
> > these don't come up in civilian air travel today, but there are enough
> > instances in other air operation domains to suggest that any
international
> > air space management scheme should be prepared to deal with
> >such cases. They
> > are similar to code shares, but involve physical envelopment or
linking in
> > flight. Should two flight object instances become one
> > (docking/envelopment)
> > or one become two (separation/ejection) in mid-flight? (026)
> I suggest that an object launched from a flying object begins its flight
> at separation. Two flying objects that connect to pass fuel (or anything
> else)
> while continuing to independently fly, i suggest just reach a different
> stage of their flights. If one flying object becomes engulfed in a
> second,
> and docks, i suggest that it's flight ends at that point. When two flying
> objects dock, yet remain external to each other, whichever is considered
> to
> no longer be flying has its flight end at the time of docking. If the two
> objects reconfigure into a third shape (like transformers), i'd suggest
> that
> the two initial flights might be considered to end and a new flight, by a
> third object starts. (027)
> > Or should they persist with their original flight identifier and be
> > flagged
> > with some other indicator that they are now physically linked together? (028)
> This seems to be a question of FAA (or IATA) policy. An ontology can
> model whatever policy is decided upon. (029)
> > How does this mesh with radar information showing only a single track
> > for two flight instances? (030)
> The same way it currently does for refueling and gliders/other vehicles
> separating from planes. (031)
> > The problem, of course, is that what constitutes an individual for air
> > traffic management purposes changes in such situations. (032)
> They don't care about "individuals". They care about the things they
> manage. Ontologists just need to model the entities that the domain
> experts find important. (033)
> > In the extreme, we could envision individual passengers and luggage
> > departing an aircraft in mid-air and using "bat-suits" and "GPS precision
> > homing kits" to fly directly to their individual destinations. (034)
> Fun, but however the flight controllers model it can be handled by an
> ontology. (035)
> > Regarding the Concorde tourist jaunts, I wonder if they were treated
> > as an individual aircraft/tail number with a filed flight plan (like most
> > general aviation air traffic) vice a scheduled airline flight? (036)
> Flights with the same departure and landing airports certainly would have
> been. They would have had defined segments of their flights. (037)
> > The scope of what types of flying entities should be included in the
> > flight object data services was a big unresolved issue. (038)
> Are you suggesting that ontologists should tell the SMEs what to model?
> Advice could be given after the SMEs provide a lot of information about
> the domain.
>
> -- doug f
>
>
>
> UAVs are a big issue currently, and of course, some military aircraft
> abide
> by civilian air traffic control rules/processes, and others don't. So
> multiple namespaces for identifying flying entities is pretty much a
> given.
>
> Hans
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 9:21 AM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals
>
> Dear Hans,
>
> Not to prolong the discussion - which has been good from my perspective,
> at
> least - but your points about a full 4D perspective makes my wish we had
> you
> involved in the development of the Flight Object Data Services Pattern in
> NCOIC a couple of years ago. An interesting aspect of that concept was
> that
> a flight object represented both the full 4D evolution of a "flight" from
> concept to actual operations by some airline, as well as the actual
> instances of that "flight" that occur each day, or at whatever the
> scheduled
> interval might be. The flight identifier is used for both the conceptual
> entity of the flight, which usually persists for years, and the actual
> flight instances that occur at the scheduled intervals.
>
> MW: Well the 4D object here would be the actual flight instances, this
> would
> be a kind of activity, and to be fair, some 3D ontologies (such as BUFO)
> give a 4D treatment to activities (and a 3D treatment to physical
> objects).
> However, in a 4D treatment the flight would consist of temporal parts of
> the
> plane, crew, and passengers. Whilst the conceptual flight you mention
> could
> be the aggregate of these flights, it is more likely this is a
> specification
> (a service). So a class or type of flight instance. I would also be
> surprised if the flight number was the identifier for the flight
> instances,
> though I can see that the flight number and date might be used. Of course
> you also have to decide how you deal with code shares.
>
> There were other interesting individual identity aspects of this exercise,
> such as the assumption that flights went from place to place (restricted
> to
> ICAO codes), which would have created challenges for Virgin Airways'
> planned
> suborbital jaunts - and eventual orbital operations, or for more mundane
> mid-air refueling operations. The latter get around this problem today by
> creating "pseudo-ICAO" codes for the "racetrack in the sky" refueling
> points
> and treat it as a "stop" for the refueling aircraft before it returns to
> its
> starting airbase.
>
> MW: Hmm. It should not have been too difficult to allow a flight to return
> to the place it started from. Never mind suborbital jaunts, Concorde used
> to
> run trips for enthusiasts several times a year that were just about going
> up, getting supersonic and returning.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> <mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> <http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
> Hans
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 7:24 AM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals
>
> Dear Hans,
>
>
> You seem to be approaching this from a 3D perspective.
>
> I think the identifiers are of the individuals in the context of specific
> roles within a larger institutional/social context. They are not
> identifiers
> of the roles themselves, since obviously many, if not all, individuals
> have
> these same roles.
>
> MW: From a 4D perspective the identifiers are of the state of individual
> that is playing the role, rather than the individual for the whole of its
> life. For example, a Passport No. or a Driving License No only identifies
> particular states, not the person for the whole of their lives.
> HP: Collective contexts have duration scope, so I do take a 4D perspective
> Indeed, what identifiers of individuals are there that don't have a
> specific
> context and perspective associated with them?
>
> MW2: 4D is more than just accounting for time and change, it is a
> particular
> way to do it. The difference lies in the difference taken in the nature of
> individuals, and identity. A 3D approach says that an individual is wholly
> present at each point in time, whereas a 4D approach takes individuals as
> extended in time as well as space (so it is not wholly present at each
> point
> in time). Strong 4D goes further and says that the spatio-temporal extent
> is
> the identity basis for individuals, i.e. if two individuals have the same
> spatio-temporal extent, then they are identical.
>
> MW: Sometimes identifiers are created with that purpose, a birth
> certificate
> number for example.
> HP: But my point was that even birth certificates have a particular
> institutional context - and can get lost or destroyed. They don't
> represent
> a context-free identity for a person and are typically not coupled
> directly
> to a person biometrically and not all have numbers. I don't know of any
> system that uses birth certificate numbers as identifiers for people.
>
> MW: How about the register of births? But I agree, identifiers are
> arbitrary.
>
> That was why I made the comment "DNA notwithstanding" in my original post.
> By the way, DNA is not guaranteed to be a unique identifier, either -
> although evolution has endowed us with facial recognition capabilities
> that
> do a pretty good job. Maybe we will all live to see the day of a
> "context-free" individual identifier implanted in all individuals prior to
> birth? And what identifiers are inherent in individual entities that are
> not
> people? Maybe those laser-engraved serial numbers in some diamonds? Aren't
> those put there by or under the aegis of a specific institution?
>
> MW: Well this is a different point. The nice thing about unique
> identifiers
> is how many of them any individual can have. Being unique only means that
> within that context the identifier is managed to only refer to one thing.
> It
> does not prevent there being other unique identifiers for the same thing,
> and it does not prevent different identifiers for the same thing using the
> same scheme (though you might attempt that). For example, a person might
> try
> to obtain more than one Social Security Number so they can commit benefit
> fraud.
>
> The point is that all identities
>
> MW: Identity is different from identifier.
> HP: Correct! But information systems generally don't make that distinction
> because the only way they have of distinguishing among individuals is
> through identifiers - which have context, usually implicit and overlooked.
> And one purpose of the "entity primacy" principle is to make developers
> explicitly aware of that distinction so that they don't mistake the
> identifiers they are using for individuals for the identity of those
> individuals (which is their own and inherent in their existence in some
> reality). The best we can do is to get socio-political agreement on some
> "near-innate" identifier for individuals, such as VINS for motor vehicles
> intended for use on public roads and MAC addresses for Ethernet devices.
> Such identifiers are useful for information sharing interoperability among
> diverse contexts about the same individuals. But we don't really have such
> an identifier for people (yet). Maybe some "superDNS" identifier
> certificate
> issued independently of national/local jurisdiction before birth to all
> people (like VINs) will be brought about thanks to the Internet, but I'm
> not
> holding my breath. Or maybe some biometric will be found that can serve as
> this "near-innate" identifier on the network. And we need to be vigilant
> and
> remember that even these identifiers are not the same as identity and that
> the individuals may have other identifiers in other contexts.
>
> MW: I think it is unlikely there will be a single universally accepted
> identifier for people for some considerable time. It's a political issue
> rather than a technical one.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> <mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> <http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> <mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> <http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (039)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (040)
|