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

[Ravi Sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Similarly, can we wrap the "parts of" or "taxonomies with just hierarchies", and use ontologies for complex relations among things that require logic? Such as driverless car.

If we are also aware of users most would have a notion of word CAR in multiple languages so how far do we go to address the last target audience, there are no ontologies yet for aliens to understand us except such as  Pioneer spacecraft symbols of humans and images of solar system and numbers.

Regards,

Ravi

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Rich Cooper <Rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Matthew West wrote:

>>>The critical distinction is in the restrictions implied by the
system of logic and ontology.
[MW>] Right. Now this is closer to what I was expecting. That you
retain the name, but drop the axioms when you translate between
different ontologies.
If you have a very tightly restricted logic, it's impossible to
say "driverless car".
[MW>] Again right, and this points to the problem of this
approach, which is how you identify what you mean so that it
still has the same membership (in the real world) across
ontologies with different foundations.<<<

This is the best suggestion I have heard yet on the ontology
list.  Use the name, but not the definition of OntoA, the
sender's ontology, and assign it in name only to OntoB, a
receiver's ontology.

That makes it possible to use to free the definition (in
declarative or interpretable form) for operation on only a few of
the names input, and from a very different viewpoint in each
designation of that name.  This would work like a name-linked
parameter or external binding of the nameB from B's own reasoning
processes.

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
www DOT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2


-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Matthew West
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 9:55 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re:
Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies

Dear John,
Yes of course, and I agree a logic that allows us to say things
like this is
a good thing, but...

On 4/2/2015 3:40 PM, Matthew West wrote:
> So how do you refer to a car without saying it is a car?

Just say in English (or its translation to FOL):

    There is an x.
[MW>] Just saying this means I have no idea at all what it is. It
could be a
pork pie.

If you want to say more, add

    x has four wheels; x has a cabin that can hold from 1 to 8
    people; one of them is a driver; the driver can control
    the way x moves.
[MW>] This hardly helps either. Instead of one type, I now count
four (or
more depending on exactly what you think type includes). Hardly
progress.

You can also, if you wish, say the following, but without
assuming any fixed
definition for the term 'car':

   x is car.

The critical distinction is in the restrictions implied by the
system of
logic and ontology.
[MW>] Right. Now this is closer to what I was expecting. That you
retain the
name, but drop the axioms when you translate between different
ontologies.
If you have a very tightly restricted logic, it's impossible to
say
"driverless car".
[MW>] Again right, and this points to the problem of this
approach, which is
how you identify what you mean so that it still has the same
membership (in
the real world) across ontologies with different foundations.

With a less restricted logic, you can say anything you like.
If it causes a contradiction, you just delete one or more axioms
-- in this case, the axiom that a moving car shall have a driver.
[MW>] Sure. But there is also a problem that sometimes
definitions just are
inconsistent. So in the UK 3 wheeled cars were (at one time at
least)
classified as motorcycles with sidecars. I doubt many other
countries
defined car to exclude 3 wheelers.

Regards

Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
+44 750 338 5279



John

_________________________________________________________________
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




_________________________________________________________________
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

--

Thanks.
Ravi
(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)