> With this ontology, multiple "passenger" events can be recognized as
temporal parts of the same "person" process. (01)
Hmmm. What am I missing here...? Must be a lot. (02)
Maybe this isn't a universal approach, or overlooks something important, but
from the point of view of simple database design, all this issue seems to
require is a database table of unique individual people -- with a list of
descriptors/attributes adequate for whatever the purposes might be, and
another database table of "flights". (03)
Every passenger (with their check-list of attributes or tags) has a unique
ID number, and so do the flights. Associated with every flight is the list
of passengers. (04)
For me -- a "person" is an irreducible object with any number of attributes
(that may or may not be transient -- and yes, maybe "duplicates" are a
problem). A "flight" is (or would seem to be) a well-defined object or
class. This complexity looks to me like nothing more than a simple
many-to-one mapping (many people from the "people" table mapped to 1 flight,
where they become "passengers") (05)
I guess I am following Russell's definition: (06)
"The thing-property ontology, which Russell (1918) pushed to the extreme of
treating objects as nothing but "a bundle of properties," is derived from
the substance-property-accident representation of Aristotle's early
philosophy." (07)
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf (08)
But this is so obvious, I must be grossly underestimating something or
missing some huge point. Sorry if this is a mindlessly trivial comment. (09)
- Bruce Schuman (010)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 10:12 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The "qua-entities" paradigm (011)
Leo and Gian Piero, (012)
Leo
> Krifka, Manfred. 1990. "Four Thousand Ships Passed Through The Lock:
> Object-Induced Measure Functions on Events". Linguistics and
> Philosophy
> 13 (1990), 487-520. (013)
Gian Piero
> Thanks for telling me about [Krifka's paper] - even if, in my humble
> opinion, a complex formal analysis is not really necessary to deal
> with this topic. (014)
I agree that the paper is (a) interesting, but (b) far more complex than it
should be. It has 34 pages of formalism -- see below for excerpts that show
why it's so complex. (015)
I agree with Matthew that a 4D system can simplify many descriptions.
That is the basis for Whitehead's process ontology: (016)
1. Mereology + 4D space-time (017)
2. Processes are fundamental, with events as spatial and temporal
parts of processes. (018)
3. Objects are slowly changing processes that are sufficiently
stable that repeated events can be recognized as parts of
the same process. (019)
With this ontology, multiple "passenger" events can be recognized as
temporal parts of the same "person" process. (020)
Whitehead's ontology is far more compatible with modern science than any
ontology that takes macroscopic objects as primitive. (021)
Rescher wrote a very good critique of the object-based ontologies by Quine,
Strawson, and others. For a summary with references, see pp. 5 and 6 of
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf (022)
John
_______________________________________________________________________ (023)
http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/s07/events/krifka90.pdf (024)
[The solution] is couched in a more general framework for the semantics of
mass nouns, count nouns, measure constructions, and temporal constitution
(i.e., aspectual classes), which was developed in Krifka (1986, to appear).
This framework takes on the one hand the treatment of mass nouns and plural
nouns in an algebraic (lattice-theoretic) semantics, as developed by Link
(1983), and the event semantics developed by Davidson (1967) and Parsons
(1980) on the other (cf.
Hinrichs, 1985; Bach, 1986; Link, 1987; and Lasersohn, 1988 for related
approaches). Furthermore, it combines them with notions developed in the
theory of measurement... (025)
In Section (3), I will present two versions of this analysis, the second of
which is semantically somewhat more complicated, but more in agreement with
the syntactic structure... (026)
In Section (4), I will go into some cases which seem to pose special
problems for at least one of the two analyses - namely, coordination,
quantifiers, comparison, anaphora, and phase nouns. Finally, I will argue
that the event-related readings of our examples are a special case of a more
common phenomenon, which in general can be described as the extension of
measure functions from one domain to another... (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
|