[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:19:26 -0400
Message-id: <CAEmngXuWYL7oGDXGjjAycTjVvxBHU7WCuLHUKRxWBFJKPKJ9Kw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Comment below. 

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 17, 2015, at 2:24 AM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Pat,
> It seems to me you are saying that the data elements that you need to talk
> about what is true at a time and change over time are the same for the
> different views of how the world is.

Yes, but more than that. In addition, the actual logic allows each point of view to be expressed in ways that 'natural' for it, and appropriate conclusions drawn within that point of view, and yet both POVs can use the same vocabulary and be not only mutually consistent (in the strict logical sense) but even interderivable from one another, given appropriate linking axioms. So a conclusion stated in one style can be interderivable with the same conclusion stated in the other style.

> I agree. If you are to provide an
> adequate description of however the world is from different view points, I
> think that must be so even. If not the different views would not work, and
> would be dismissed. The problem is that the different views are workable,
> rather than demonstrably wrong.
> However, I don't think that a data format that obfuscates the different
> views helps. It does not make the different views the same somehow, it just
> demonstrates some level of equivalence. Equivalence is not the same as
> compatibility.

Indeed, but one gets actual compatibility from this style of axiomatization. (Well to be very careful, there are things that can only be stated in one framework, but nothing can be done about that.)


Yes, and more than that:  The approach Pat describes does not "obfuscate the different views."  Having sufficient expressiveness and logical features allows one to represent very many things as seen from both + perspectives. If you are working on a project for which it is useful to have that flexibility, it is very, very likely that it will also be useful to *capture*, that is *model* the different views more or less explicitly. You will also want not only model-parts that let you convert between the two, but inference support that actually does this, and easily.

Having these things is very useful in enabling multi-modal, multi-directional, and flexible interaction between an ontological knowledge base and (a) people, (b) varied systems, and (c) complementary sub-systems such as NLP that have their own internal representation and can be used more efficiently if they can interact with the knowledge base's contents in a particular form. In other words, such flexibility, with explicit (non-obfuscated) axiomitization of various models and relationships between them, enables a wider variety of applications, guis, and systems to work with the same ontology / knowledge base, each interacting with the knowledge (semi-)normalized to the form most conducive to that interaction.


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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>