"Chris Partridge" <partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Not sure we are talking the same language.
> Comments inline. (01)
> On 2 February 2012 16:19, Ali SH <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (02)
>> It is unclear to me what the issue is. (03)
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Chris Partridge <
>> partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (04)
>>> It seems to me as if you are just playing with names here. If you want
>>> to
>>> call it a pump *role*, that is fine. But that what you are describing
>>> seems
>>> not to have the qualities that many people expect to be essential to
>>> roles.
>>> These (like qua entities) do not have an individual identity and they
>>> do
>>> not
>>> do things, they are not agents. Whereas, for example, spatio-temporal
>>> entities come bundled with identity. What have I missed?
>>>
>>> So the Hamlet example would better be Jonathon Pryce's 1992 Hamlet. Or
>>> even
>>> better if we use Chairman (President, Bishop or Monarch) , the
>>> difference between Chairman and the Chairman of Goldman Sachs. (05)
>> Are not roles social constructs? (06)
Certainly a social role such as Chairman (of XYZ) is a social construct.
A role such as Descending Tectonic Plate is not. (07)
>> So their identity criteria are whatever
>> one decides to associate with the role. So the definition for a generic
>> Chairman would differ from Chairman of XYZ. (08)
It would be more specific, and therefore differ, yes. (09)
>> CP> As I understand it roles/qua individuals have *no* identity criteria
>> - not quite the same thing. (010)
Instead of "role/qua individual", consider using "individual qua role
player".
The individual may have identity criteria. The 4-D identity criteria for
a specific individual playing a role, would be the identity criteria for
the individual conjoined with whatever criteria are needed to determine
that
the individual is playing the role at a given time. (011)
>>> Also, not clear to me why you cannot kick your roles - as, again, they
>>> are spatio-temporal entities?
>>> When Ronnie Reagan was shot, people said they shot
>>> the President of the US, didn't they? (012)
This is linguistic shorthand. (013)
>>> They did not say thank goodness they
>>> only shot Mr Reagan - they could not shoot the President as he is a
>>> role. (014)
>> As for the appeal to a natural language formulation "The president was
>> shot" - is that not broadly similar to saying "Paul is angry." (015)
It depends on the meaning of the phrase. If i say "Hamlet is angry"
and mean that the character is angry at the current point of the
play, it is different. If i mean that Laurence Olivier while playing
Hamlet is angry, whether or not the character is not at this point
it is similar. (016)
>> CP> Not to me.
>
>> Both represent natural language shortcuts which efficiently communicate
>> intention, but the latter certainly doesn't imply that Paul is literally
>> an instance of angry. (017)
That is not "what the meaning of `is' is" in this situation. (018)
> CP> Do not see how this follows.
> CP> BTW it does mean that Paul is in a state of being angry and that state
> is an instance of being angry. (019)
Agreed. (020)
>> Similarly, simply because we can say that the "president was shot"
>> doesn't mean the role was shot,
>> rather it seems to suggest that the spatio-temporal
>> entity that was fulfilling the role at that particular point in time was
>> shot. It seems a common human trait to associate the entity fulfilling a
>> role with the role itself, though I don't see benefit in reading too
>> deeply in this linguistic association. (021)
>> CP> See Pat's suggestion that the role is also a spatio-temporal entity. (022)
Temporal, yes. I don't see that the role is spatial. (023)
Similarly, the situation of someone filling the role is temporal, but not
spatial. (024)
-- doug f (025)
>>> Regards,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Pat Hayes
>>> > Sent: 02 February 2012 02:32
>>> > ...
>>> > Very good question, Matthew. Let me try out an idea on you. Your P101
>>> is
>>> > actually a role played by a pump, rather than a pump itself. Think of
>>> it
>>> as
>>> > being like Hamlet, as played by Lawrence Olivier (P101 as played by
>>> S3556).
>>> > You can change actors, and Hamlet is still Hamlet - same role - and
>>> while
>>> > Olivier is playing the role, he *is* Hamlet, at least in a sense. But
>>> this
>>> second
>>> > "is" cannot be identity, since you can kick the actor, but you can't
>>> kick
>>> a role.
>>> >
>>> > Both a pump and a pump-role are spatiotemporal entities, but they
>>> have
>>> > different identity conditions. The identity of a pump, like any other
>>> physical
>>> > object, is determined by the disposition of pieces of material stuff
>>> (metal,
>>> > plastic, rubber), but the identity of the role is determined by its
>>> interfaces to
>>> > the rest of the system (being connected to this pipe in this place
>>> and
>>> > operated by this controller, etc..)
>>> >
>>> > You can identify a pump-phase (temporal slice) with a
>>> pump-role-phase,
>>> but
>>> > you must not identify the actual individuals, so its safer to
>>> actually
>>> have a
>>> > relation of 'functioning as' of the like to attach a role-playing
>>> thing
>>> to
>>> its role.
>>> > Or, you can treat the role as a time-dependent property of the
>>> physical
>>> thing,
>>> > but you will probably need a CL-style ability to have properties of
>>> properties
>>> > if you go that (elegant) route.
>>> >
>>> > Make sense?
>>> >
>>> > Pat
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Jan 29, 2012, at 3:48 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Dear Colleagues,
>>> > >
>>> > > Last Thursday I complained that most ontologies do not give
>>> adequate
>>> > > treatment to what I call system components, and if ontology is
>>> going
>>> > > to gain traction within the systems world, it needs to get a better
>>> > > understanding of this central idea in systems engineering.
>>> > >
>>> > > I illustrated the issue by telling the (simplified) life story of a
>>> > > system
>>> > > component: the pump, P101, at the bottom of a distillation column.
>>> > > Here is its story.
>>> > >
>>> > > The designer creates a drawing of the distillation column including
>>> at
>>> > > the bottom of the column a pump to pump away the column bottoms. He
>>> > > labels it P101, decides that one pump will be sufficient, and gives
>>> > > the specification for the pump in terms of Net Positive Suction
>>> Head,
>>> > > differential head, flow rate, materials of construction, and many
>>> other
>>> > things.
>>> > >
>>> > > The construction engineer picks up the drawing and specification
>>> and
>>> > > notices he has to install a pump as P101. Fortunately, he has a
>>> pump
>>> > > in stock from a previous project, that has been in stores unused
>>> for 5
>>> > > years which exactly meets the specification. On it is stamped
>>> Serial
>>> No
>>> > S3556.
>>> > >
>>> > > The designer and the Operator comes to see the pump be installed,
>>> and
>>> > > once the connections are made, he gives the pump a friendly kick
>>> and
>>> > > says to the construction engineer "It's good to see P101 realized
>>> at
>>> > > last". The construction engineer says in return "Yes, and it's good
>>> to
>>> > > get S3556 off my hands at last." He turns to the operator and says
>>> > > "Why don't we change your drawings to show S3556 instead of P101?"
>>> The
>>> > > operator says "No, don't do that, it's a replaceable part, and one
>>> day
>>> > > another pump will be put there, and I don't want to have to change
>>> all
>>> > > the drawings and other documentation that refers to P101 each time
>>> it
>>> > > is replaced, as far as I am concerned it's the same pump whatever
>>> is
>>> > installed there."
>>> > >
>>> > > Some time later the pump breaks down and needs to be taken back to
>>> the
>>> > > workshop. The maintenance engineer says to the operator "Hi, can I
>>> > > take
>>> > > S3556 installed as P101 back to the workshop?" The operator replies
>>> > > "Sure, but what am I supposed to do without my P101? If it does not
>>> > > exist I cannot operate my distillation column." The maintenance
>>> > > engineer responds, "I understand. We have another pump S4567, that
>>> > > meets the same specification as P101. We'll replace S3556 with it
>>> and
>>> > > you will only be without P101 for a few hours. I don't understand
>>> how
>>> > > you can continue to call it P101 though when all the parts have
>>> > > changed at once." The operator replies "I don't care about that.
>>> What
>>> > > I care about is what is connected in my system to pump the liquid
>>> from
>>> > > the bottom of the column. As long as it does that, it is P101 to
>>> me."
>>> > >
>>> > > Later the distillation column is demolished. The operator says, "A
>>> sad
>>> > > end, I was very fond of P101, but it is no more." The demolition
>>> > > engineer says, "Yes indeed. Fortunately, we can take S4567 and use
>>> it
>>> on
>>> > another plant."
>>> > >
>>> > > It's probably worth summarising the key characteristics of a system
>>> > > component:
>>> > > - It comes into existence the first time it is installed.
>>> > > - It is identical to the equipment items installed, whilst they are
>>> > > installed (but not before or after).
>>> > > - It can survive complete replacement of all its parts at once.
>>> > > - It can survive periods of non-existence.
>>> > > - It ceases to exist when the system it is a component of ceases to
>>> exist.
>>> > >
>>> > > This is clearly rather different from the life of ordinary physical
>>> objects.
>>> > > However, relatively few ontologies recognise that such things
>>> exist.
>>> > > Many try to fob system components off as being classes, or abstract
>>> > > individuals, though these clearly do not have the required
>>> characteristics.
>>> > >
>>> > > Ontologists need to step up to the mark here and provide proper
>>> > > recognition for system components.
>>> > >
>>> > > 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. (026)
>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494
>>> 3973
>>> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>>> > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>>> > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>>> > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (028)
|