Leo, I understand your point, but I also know you
are not giving up and you don't expect John or
anyone else to, but John is simply emphasizing
that it is an expensive undertaking in economic
terms (lots of person-hours, lots of dollars, thus
lots of people, and lots of politicality). (01)
Someone (perhaps MW?) wrote:
>> The important thing to take from this is not
that it is too
>> difficult, but that you need to think about how
time relates
>> to the requirements you are trying to meet, and
make sure
>> you have a model that is fit for purpose. A
particularly bad
>> approach is to start with a current state model
and then try
>> to add change, history and time later. (02)
I disagree. The usual linear system equations can
be predictions of state values in the next
iteration, and by default the system is the same
from iteration K to iteration K+1, but there is no
reason we are constrained by that. We could have
system[k] be distinct from system[k+1] and
therefore expand the basic ideas behind linear
systems theories, which have worked so well within
those constraints, to a more general purpose if
the linear system equations are replaced by more
general functions. (03)
-Rich (04)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 5:20 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Discussion re
reasoning about Time and State with REST
interfaces (06)
John, (07)
What we try to do is impossible, no? And so, let's
just give up, eh? (08)
Thanks,
Leo (09)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F
Sowa
>Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:06 AM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Discussion re
reasoning about Time and State with
>REST interfaces
>
>Dear Ed and Matthew,
>
>EJB
>> There is no good model for all problems.
>
>That is the understatement of the year.
>
>I would add that even for a single project -- say
designing
>an airplane, a house, or a computer -- there are
a huge number
>of problems that require different models. And
those models
>are *rarely, if ever* consistent with one another
when you
>get down to the grubby details of each.
>
>MW
>> The important thing to take from this is not
that it is too
>> difficult, but that you need to think about how
time relates
>> to the requirements you are trying to meet, and
make sure
>> you have a model that is fit for purpose. A
particularly bad
>> approach is to start with a current state model
and then try
>> to add change, history and time later.
>
>For any particular model, that's true. But note
that even for
>designing a house (a typical one-family home),
there are a large
>number of different models. All of them have to
be consistent
>(to a good approximation) with the map drawn up
by the surveyor
>and the blueprints drawn up by the architect.
>
>But all the subcontractors come with their own
models (usually
>mental): plumbers, electricians, carpenters,
landscapers,
>excavators, etc. Try discussing identity
conditions with them.
>A blank stare is preferable to some remarks they
might make.
>
>Now multiply those issues by thousands, if you're
trying to
>design a Boeing 787 or Airbus 380. It's no
wonder that those
>projects weren't finished on time and within
budget.
>
>By the way, I attended a talk last week about
data mining in
>bioinformatics. The speaker said that he talked
with many of
>the physicians at a large, modern hospital. None
of them had
>heard anything about ontology or the related
terms that we
>kick around on this list.
>
>If they happen to choose a formally defined term
from a menu,
>what is the likelihood that their intended use is
consistent
>with the formal definition?
>
>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
> (010)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|