Leo,
Apologies for the ambiguities. The subject is not rain and snow. Those are the
metaphors. The subject is emergence and the special confusions of triple-point
systems. (01)
OBTW, perhaps ecologies are systems only in the minds of humans. if you don't
want to take up natural vs. human-imputed systems this year so be it. However
it is already a big confusion in the societal demand for systems. For example
sponsors do not know that more than 90% or Mother Nature's experiments fail. (02)
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote: (03)
> Sure, human engineered systems also contain humans. That's what systems
>engineering is all about. And teleological arguments do show correspondences
>to human-engineered systems (function of the heart in the human body). But
>remember we are addressing human-engineered systems. Ecologies are systems and
>are wider than human-engineered systems, but obviously also affect the latter.
> Perhaps ecologies, especially human-influenced ecologies are super-systems,
>and we should address these here, but I think we are veering off.
>
> I suggest just like we are not addressing natural ecologies, at least not in
>this summit. Or at the least: not in this thread yet. We are ontologizing rain
>and snow.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:01 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolgizing rain & snow [was: Track 1&2 Joint
>Mission and Session Abstracts]
>
> I think you will have a difficult time explaining why natural systems are not
>human-presumed systems. And closer to reality, yet, if human engineered
>systems contain N humans as active components then what?
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
>
>> Folks, this might be a discussion thread more appropriate for the more
>general [ontolog-forum], since it doesn't really address human engineered
>systems, but instead natural systems.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leo
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:24 PM
>> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontolgizing rain & snow [was: Track 1&2 Joint
>Mission and Session Abstracts]
>>
>> Doug, Thank you for this. As is probably obvious by now or will be by the
>end of this message I am not a practicing ontologist.
>> I am struck by several presumptions and gaps in the Cyc example. Perhaps I
>just can't read right or perhaps these are not proper ontology stuff. As I
>said in the last track, I am not sure I am looking for ontology as the means
>for systemist interoperability. Perhaps I seek some yet-to-be-conceived
>semiotic transformer. At any rate, humor me regarding the following:
>> The example doesn't say where rain comes from. Mentions clouds but clouds
>are not rain or they wouldn't be "up there."
>> I am looking for the notion of emergence. Rain happens after raindrops
>occur. Why do raindrops occur? And why snowflakes rather than raindrops? And
>why not mention fog as well? And Relative Humidity?
>>
>> OBTW, rain water is not fresh. Raindrops condense on particles, every
>raindrop has one therefor rainwater is laden with particles (especially ones
>resulting from cloud seeding).
>> OBTW, Raindrops fall on me in Arizona while the sun is shining. No storm
>evident. Just an occlusion of a low and high pressure trough waaay up there.
>> I am not trying to be smart alecky here. It is just that systems work
>challenges you to think beyond the active entities and consider the not's as
>well. Otherwise Unintended Consequences are born.
>>
>> I maliciously mentioned rain and snow because H2O has a triple point, vapor,
>liquid, solid depending on pressure, temperature, etc., Not all substances
>have such triple point. Methinks "SYSTEM" does which is the root of much
>confusion therefore a challenge for ontologists.
>>
>> Thanks for your attention.
>> Jack
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 10:58 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew West wrote:
>>>
>>>> I understand your view. How shall you handle rain and snow?
>>>
>>> Rain & snow refer to physical precipitation particles, the precipitation in
>>> bulk, the process that produces the precipitation, storms as events, and
>>> storms as objects.
>>>
>>> Cyc's representation of these different, but related things (leaving out
>>> comments and some additional statements) includes:
>>>
>>> (isa PrecipitationParticle ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls PrecipitationParticle Particle)
>>> (genls PrecipitationParticle InanimateObject-Natural)
>>>
>>> (isa RainProcess ProcessType)
>>> (genls RainProcess PrecipitationProcess)
>>>
>>> (isa SnowProcess ProcessType)
>>> (genls SnowProcess PrecipitationProcess)
>>>
>>> (isa Rainwater ExistingStuffType)
>>> (genls Rainwater (LiquidFn Water-Fresh))
>>>
>>> (isa SnowMob ExistingStuffType)
>>> (genls SnowMob (SolidFn Water))
>>>
>>> (isa Snowflake ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls Snowflake PrecipitationParticle)
>>> (genls (MobFn Snowflake) SnowMob)
>>>
>>> (isa Raindrop ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls Raindrop PrecipitationParticle)
>>> (genls Raindrop Rainwater)
>>>
>>> (relationAllExists outputsGenerated PrecipitationProcess
>>> (MobFn PrecipitationParticle))
>>> (relationAllExists outputsGenerated RainProcess (MobFn Raindrop))
>>> (relationAllExists outputsGenerated SnowProcess (MobFn Snowflake))
>>>
>>> (isa StormAsObject ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls StormAsObject InanimateObject-Natural)
>>> (relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject CloudInSky)
>>>
>>> (isa RainStormAsObject ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls RainStormAsObject StormAsObject)
>>> (relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject CloudInSky)
>>> (relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject (MobFn Raindrop))
>>>
>>> (isa SnowStormAsObject ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls SnowStormAsObject StormAsObject)
>>> (relationAllExists physicalParts StormAsObject CloudInSky)
>>> (relationAllExists physicalParts SnowStormAsObject (MobFn Snowflake))
>>>
>>> (not (relationExistsAll doneBy PrecipitationProcess StormAsObject))
>>> (comment
>>> (not (relationExistsAll doneBy PrecipitationProcess StormAsObject))
>>> "A StormAsObject would include Duststorms, which don't (necessarily)
>>> include precipitation.")
>>>
>>> (relationExistsAll doneBy RainProcess RainStormAsObject)
>>> (relationExistsAll doneBy SnowProcess SnowStormAsObject)
>>>
>>> (isa StormAsEvent ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls StormAsEvent ImmediateWeatherProcess)
>>>
>>> (isa RainStormAsEvent ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls RainStormAsEvent StormAsEvent)
>>> (relationAllExists subprocesses RainStormAsEvent RainProcess)
>>> (relationAllExists doneBy RainStormAsEvent RainStormAsObject)
>>>
>>> (isa SnowStormAsEvent ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls SnowStormAsEvent StormAsEvent)
>>> (relationAllExists subprocesses SnowStormAsEvent SnowProcess)
>>> (relationAllExists doneBy SnowStormAsEvent SnowStormAsObject)
>>>
>>> (isa SnowStormAsObject ExistingObjectType)
>>> (genls SnowStormAsObject StormAsObject)
>>> (relationAllExists physicalParts SnowStormAsObject (MobFn Snowflake))
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jack
>>>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:09 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The main problem here is one of different people using terms
>>>>> differently. Hardly an ontological problem per se, but certainly a
>>>>> problem that causes confusion in developing ontologies.
>>>
>>> This is always a problem for ontologists. The different meanings have
>>> to be teased apart.
>>>
>>>>> Interestingly as a 4 dimensionalist I don't recognise endurants at all,
>>>>> but I do recognise activities, physical objects, and participants. Under
>>>>> this world view all individuals (including activities, physical objects
>>>>> and participants) are spatiotemporal extents, and you discover that an
>>>>> activity consists of its participants, where a participant is the state
>>>>> of a physical object that participates in some activity. So I recognise
>>>>> the things you talk about. However, I would assign the term "system" to
>>>>> the physical object the participant is a state of.
>>>
>>> I would not restrict the term "system" merely to physical objects. But
>>> having multiple clearly defined concepts which different people use that
>word
>>> for in different contexts, is fine. They just need different URIs.
>>>
>>> -- doug
>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew West
>>>>> Information Junction
>>>>> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>>>>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>>>>> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>>>>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>>>>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>>>>>
>>>>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
>>>>> England and Wales No. 6632177.
>>>>> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
>>>>> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>>>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>
>>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (05)
|