Re: [ontolog-forum] Follow up discussion from Mike Gruninger's talk "The

[Alex Shkotin <alex.shkotin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Gary, Hans and All!

It was nice to be again at our great webinar. And thank you Gary for an interesting report.

I have put 2-3 sentences to the chat, like this:

a) A notion of reference system is very important for us versus Euclid geometry. (See physics)

b) But at first-cut, Euclid geometry is enough to define a form of bodies and its mutual placement.

...

And let me add

a) It seems there are 3 kind of location (place): 1) on the surface of the body (Earth for ex.), 2) inside the body (human for ex.), 3) outside of any body (Moon).

b) It seems first we need to find out how to define a shape of a body (and how to use it as a reference system), as location is usually a part of body.

Most of this parts are just agreements, but this means they have generally accepted definitions (country's border...). 

KML may be a language to define a shape of a body using some approximation.

c) It seems that most of mentioned axioms should be theorems in for ex. Gilbert's axiomatic theory of Euclid geometry if we have definitions for L, region, part... 

d) And what about Chapter 6 "Space" of Ernest Davis "Representations of Commonsense Knowledge", 1990? 

I had promised myself to read it many years ago:-)

What do you think?

In 2008 we have used a primary predicate "place" to keep information about gathering places of rock samples. 

And we have kept in mind a fundamental sort - "body" for things like sample, island, ocean, etc ;-)

At this approach a shape of a body is a math structure and a position of a body is fixed by coordinates and orientation, as usual.

See https://sites.google.com/site/alex0shkotin/formalnaa-geologia/bd-proba-ontologia

Alex

2015-08-21 1:35 GMT+03:00 Hans Polzer <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

I agree, Gary. And one has to wonder who decided that Europe and Asia were two separate continents – and why.  At least for Africa and North and South America the land bridge with other “continents” is fairly small when compared with the scale of the continents involved. Picking the Urals as a continental boundary seems pretty arbitrary (and Euro-centric) to me. There is also the Indian “Sub-Continent”, whatever that signifies. And then there is continental drift…..   Also, what purpose is served by identifying and naming certain crustal plates as continents versus islands? Ditto for oceans, especially since oceans are all connected with each other. Wouldn’t just referring to “the” ocean serve for most purposes? Seems to be another example of my “Lava Lamp” model of concepts/systems and their relationships, and there is more than one lava lamp.

 

Hans

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Berg-Cross
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 3:52 PM
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Follow up discussion from Mike Gruninger's talk "The Thing about Location Is" (August 20th ).

 

Bruce,

 

>the idea that the issue of defining abstract objects like “islands” or “continents” or “terranes” was more or less the driver of the conversation. ..

 

​>​

The basic underlying assumption seemed to be – we are looking at actual scientific or social practice – in an “empirical” way -- and seeing this

​>​

language in actual use.  Can we give it hard systematic definition in some way?

 

​>​

From my point of view – this seems more or less an impossible task – unless we are creating consensual agreements and stipulative definition 

​>​

systems.  We can’t define “continent” in a universal or invariant or context-independent way. 

 

​The objective might  be to define things like "islands" and "continents" in useful ways and ​make those useful formulations (fit for some purpose), consistent with some systematic/scientific view & precise. A geologist's definition may be different than something built for political-legal use, which is perhaps part of what you gestured

 

to as context.

 

Perhaps a similar argument applies to the abstract, social concepts you mention, which can be discussed in some conceptual space where there are acts that seem like murder since they are close to a region of conceptual murder.  What Mike was talking about was more of the idea that stats for murder by region may be connected to where the act was committed or where the body was found etc. -  an easier spatial concept than the legal ones you are talking about, but I imagine that some of the clarifications that Mike made to integrate the abstract spatial with different types of physical processes would be useful and ca be built upon.

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.  

gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx     

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross

SOCoP Executive Secretary

Independent Consultant

Potomac, MD

240-426-0770

 

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Bruce Schuman <bruceschuman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Just got off this call, and thanks – my first try at this.  Worked great, and very informative.

 

Just a couple of reflections –

 

I was a bit late coming in – but I started getting the idea that the issue of defining abstract objects like “islands” or “continents” or “terranes” was more or less the driver of the conversation.   This perspective is the motivator of why this particular science is emerging, the problem it is intended to solve.

 

The basic underlying assumption seemed to be – we are looking at actual scientific or social practice – in an “empirical” way -- and seeing this language in actual use.  Can we give it hard systematic definition in some way?

 

From my point of view – this seems more or less an impossible task – unless we are creating consensual agreements and stipulative definition systems.  We can’t define “continent” in a universal or invariant or context-independent way.  We are forced to define the term within the bounds of some social convention or agreement – something that “works in a particular professional domain or social context.”

 

I’ve been exploring the notion of ambitious computer-mediated projects that define concepts like “political issue” and “region of applicability” in some precise way.  If we want to define an ideal form of cybernetic/electronic democracy or self-governance – we would want exact definitions of “regions” – maybe as legal entities, maybe as consensual agreements – so that we could put an issue like “global warming” or “climate change” in the right “region” – and also put a much more local issue like “where to put the stop sign” in the right bounded region.

 

I’d like to see all of this mediated through GIS and “longitude and latitude” – which as somebody mentioned in the call, is defined in floating-point numbers – “accurate to within a specific number of decimal places”.  In a specific social or scientific group – the definitions of terms like “island” or “island chain” are consensual.  But from the GIS mapping point of view – it’s less important what “label” we assign to this bounded region – and more important that we know the actual boundary, and how accurate it is (fractal theory tells us exact physical boundaries are a chimera).  How we name or label this region – is a matter of convenience – necessary, but consensual and stipulative and approximate to within defined tolerances.

 

I thought it was interesting that immediately following the brief comments on longitude and latitude, somebody mentioned the tension between quantitative and qualitative definition.

 

And then someone mentioned the example of “how many murders occurred within a certain region”.

 

For me – the abstract space of word-definitions – “labels” – also refer to “bounded regions” – bounded regions in abstract space.  So, the difference between “murder” and “manslaughter” is a matter of defining bounded regions in some critical dimensions.  To what degree – along some dimension – was this act intentional?  Various degrees of murder are defined in abstract dimensions in an abstract space.  Just about all law is defined in just this way: stay inside the bounded region, you are legal and innocent – step outside of it, you are illegal and guilty.

 

If we begin to understand all abstract definition as essentially stipulative – as is the distinction in law between the various “degrees” of murder and manslaughter – it seems like we are looking at a fairly uniform methodology for linking quantitative and qualitative variables – “some kind of dimensionality”.  Aren’t all distinctions in abstract space – the difference between a cat and a dog – defined in terms of bounded regions, where the “min” and “max” values in the bounded range are defined stipulatively – and that range could/should (?) be defined in dimensions?

 

If this starts to make sense – we then begin to see ways to build up all categorical/semantic definitions – especially in terms of legal issues – in term of min/max boundary values in critical dimensions.  Of course this is kinda revolutionary  -- but this feels like a key to patching together a whole lot of disparate domains – which are inherently incommensurate today, because they are defined in floating/ungrounded/independent variables.  Start building up these definitions in a systematic way from exact floating point values in a consensual coordinate frame – and –

 

J

 

(hmm, explosive potential conclusions, grounded in – some would say -- mirage mathematics)

 

Thanks for this discussion and this list, much appreciated.

 

Bruce Schuman, Santa Barbara CA USA

http://goo.gl/VKm4og

 

 

 

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Berg-Cross
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 6:53 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Update on the Next Ontolog virtual meeting on "The Thing about Location Is" (Th. August 20th 12:30 -2 EDT).

 

A link to Mike Gruninger's slides for today's talk  have now been posted on the Ontolog Wiki:

http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/w/images/8/81/The_things_about_location_MikeG_for_socop.pdf

 

The outline of the talk is:

1. Review of Location Ontologies 

   such as 1st order ontologhies

•     Varzi colore.oor.net/location varzi 
•    Donnelly colore.oor.net/location donnelly 
•    SUMO colore.oor.net/sumo location 
•   Hahmann colore.oor.net/multidim space space

2 Abstract vs physical regions

 3 Do different classes of objects require different location ontologies?

 4 Reasoning about change and location

 

Also Mike has set up to record the session in case you can't call in and we will post the link to that after it is processed

along, we expect, with some of the chat and discussion.

 

These will be on the session site (http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySpatial-Topics) when they are available.

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.  

​​

gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx     

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross

SOCoP Executive Secretary

Independent Consultant

Potomac, MD

240-426-0770

 

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Welcome back from vacation.....

We are planning another virtual meeting follow up to the June Vespucci Institutes 2015  Programme. This one on Th. August 20th (12:30- 2 EDT) follows the July session presented by Torsten Hahman and  features a presentation by Mike Grunninger on: The Thing about Location Is ...

Abstract

 

Several ontologies for location have been proposed in the
literature, and all rely on the distinction between some kind
of physical object and the abstract region at which it is located.
This talk will explore some possible ways of axiomatizing classes

of physical geographical entities based on extensions of the location ontologies.

 

This is a topic of  interest to the SOCoP community and the Ontolog communities.  

 

More details on the call and presentation should be available soon and will follow the usual

Ontolog process for accessing the session. If there are any questions please contact Gary Berg-Cross gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx

 

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.  

gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx     

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross

SOCoP Executive Secretary

Independent Consultant

Potomac, MD

240-426-0770

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)