|From:||Ravi Sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:50:53 -0700|
Deeply appreciate consistency in thought, based on last link alone spread over 15 years!.
1. I like the approach where description of object and or process is in context, fit for purpose as your and other discussions have shown complexity of Nature of reality. Engineer is not usually worried about internal atomic changes unless the material properties (macro such as tensile strength) change as a result during lifespan of use of object.
2. If we describe an object in 4D (time being integral - especially where processes impact the object during time of consideration) does that take care of dynamic aspects and how would then 4D ontologies be constructed? Just like the implicit 3D or not?
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:15 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Matthew, Leo, William, and Pat,
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:|
|Next by Date:|
|Previous by Thread:|
|Next by Thread:|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|