Dear Patrick, (01)
> Matthew,
> I know these issues have been discussed in great detail, but as I
mentioned
> before, I think that elements of an ontology should have the most
informative
> and least misleading labels. My goal for an upper ontology is to be as
> unambiguous as possible, and also to provide a basis for all potential
domain
> ontologies. For any given application one may choose to consider the
contents
> of a container as 'part' of the container, but it may well be very
important
> to make the distinction. (02)
MW: Yes. When I say it does not matter which choice you make, I meant that
you can choose either way. However, it would be important that the
distinction you made was explicit and not vague. You might even have two
objects one with and one without the contents. (03)
> In a refinery, for example, with fluids rapidly passing through some
length
> of pipe, are the fluids inside the pipe at any given time considered as
'part'
> of the pipe? Are the crew of a ship below decks part of the ship? (04)
MW: Generally, no. Only if you were considering the all-up weight (say for
foundations design or loaded weight) would the answer be yes - which just
makes the point that there are two answers. (05)
> That may work in some applications, but it is nonintuitive, could mislead
the
> ontology users, and would give trouble in a Natural Language application,
> which is one of the important ones I am concerned with.
> There are many degrees of transience of materials moving in and out of
> objects, so one needs to create a criterion. I just think that the
criterion
> that *anything* enclosed in an object is *part* of that object is too
simple
> for many cases. There are cases where enclosed materials *can* be 'part'
of
> an object - the mercury in a glass-mercury thermometer, for example is
> treated in COSMO as part of the thermometer, because it is a stable and
> functional part. Without it, the thermometer doesn't work. But the
gasoline
> in an automobile is more problematic, because it is intended not to remain
in
> the gas tank. I prefer logical 'parts' to have some degree of temporal
> stability. (06)
MW: I don't think you can make general rules. You have to look at the
purpose of the object and construct it to meet that purpose. There are
likely to be a few cases that are much more useful than others, e.g. empty
and full, because they are boundary cases. But in Formula 1 they weigh the
cars at the end of the race, and that weight includes any fuel left in the
car. The weight must be greater than a minimum specification. (07)
> There may be a use for the general notion of anything spatially
contained
> being a part, and such a relation should be defined in the top ontology. (08)
MW: I'm not that bothered about containment. I'm quite happy, for example,
with the mereological sum of the planets, being just the planets, and
nothing in between them. But there are certainly practical examples where
how to treat what is contained needs to be considered. (09)
> But there are lots of other part relations, and that more general one is
one I
> would be very reluctant to label as a 'part' relation. I would prefer to
> label such a relation 'isSpatiallyContainedWithin' or some such. That
would
> mean the same, without misleading potential users. (010)
MW: Yes, being more precise about the name is the right thing to do. If it
turns out that your new relation is itself transitive, you might consider
whether it was a subtype of mereological whole/part - but even if it were
transitive, it might not be such a subtype. (011)
Regards (012)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
https://sites.google.com/site/drmatthewwest/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire,
SG6 2SU. (013)
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA Inc.
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> 908-561-3416
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:19 PM
> > To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is the role of an upper level
> > ontology?
> >
> > Dear PatC,
> > I don't see why that is any harder than considering the oxygen that
> > enters your body as you breath and leaves later as part of some carbon
> > dioxide.
> > There are admittedly some questions to consider, is the volume of your
> > lungs inside or outside your body? For instance. But it is not of
> > great significance what your answer is.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Information Junction
> > Tel: +44 1489 880185
> > Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> > Skype: dr.matthew.west
> > matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> > https://sites.google.com/site/drmatthewwest/
> > This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
> > England and Wales No. 6632177.
> > Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
> > Hertfordshire,
> > SG6 2SU.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Cassidy
> > > Sent: 20 May 2013 18:55
> > > To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is the role of an upper level
> > ontology?
> > >
> > > PatH:
> > >
> > > One issue in parthood as often used has been problematic for me: if
> > it is
> > true
> > > in mereology that:
> > > > If we are talking about
> > > > physical objects (the usual case) then it can be described as: if
> > you
> > >
> > > were to draw a tight spatiotemporal boundary around B, A would be >
> > wholly
> > > included inside that boundary. So if a lock is part-of a door, >
> > > and
> > a
> > door
> > > is part-of a house, then yes, that lock is part-of that > house,
> > because
> > the
> > > door is inside the house-boundary and the lock is > inside the
> > door-boundary.
> > > >
> > > IF we have a physical object (e.g. me) and at some time t a
> > neutrino is
> > > passing through that object (me) so that it is enclosed within the
> > convex
> > hull
> > > of the physical object, does it follow that the neutrino is part of
> > me at
> > that
> > > time? If so, it complicates the logical description of real
> > > physical
> > objects.
> > >
> > > PatC
> > >
> > > Patrick Cassidy
> > > MICRA Inc.
> > > cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> > > 908-561-3416
> > >
>
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|