Matthew, (01)
After some reflection, I understand the ontological model. And yes, the words
have gotten in the way, notably the "part OF" and "state OF" terms. (02)
As I now understand it, in your model, the universe effectively consists of
states and abstractions. (03)
A WholeLifeIndividual is just a state, with some temporal lifetime, that
represents the existence of some 'thing' that is outside the formal universe of
discourse.
So, as a WholeLifeIndividual, Ed Barkmeyer is just the state of my existence,
birth to death and beyond, or whatever part of that is relevant to the UoD. (04)
The interesting relationship between states is S1 'isTemporalPartOf' S2, which
merges two ideas:
- S1 is somehow a physical or logical component of the 'thing' of S2 that is
outside the formal universe, and/or
- the lifetime of S1 (a time interval) is a part of the lifetime of S2. (05)
The first of these relationships is "spatial"; the second is "temporal".
"Stonewall Jackson's arm" (the existence of it) is a temporal part of
"Stonewall Jackson" (his existence), if he had it throughout his life. In
fact, he lost it a few days before his death, which complicates the model. The
arm played two roles: being part of the man, and having been amputated. So
the role of being part of the man is a temporal part of "Stonewall Jackson",
but the role of being amputated is a different temporal part. And those parts
are related by being temporal parts of a WholeLifeIndividual that is the
existence of the arm itself. (06)
As a consequence, an event or situation is a 'state' of the world. A person
playing a role in an event is a state of that extra-UoD 'person-thing', and is
thus a temporal part of the state that is the WholeLifeIndividual of that
'person-thing'. At the same time, the state of the person playing a role in
the event is a logical component of the state that is the event itself, and is
therefore a temporal part of that event/state, even if the person plays the
role throughout the entire event. (It does not make a difference whether the
lifetimes are the same or different.) (07)
And, of course, the 'isTemporalPartOf' relationship is transitive, because it
is always a relationship between states, and either kind of 'part of' inclusion
is a 'temporal part of' inclusion. (08)
An abstract relationship is a 'class' whose instances are the event states in
which such a relationship exists. The abstract Role itself is a 'class', and
the instances of things playing the role are states related to the Role class
by 'instanceOf'. (09)
The ontological commitments are clear. (010)
-Ed (011)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:33 AM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> Matthew West wrote:
>
> > If you are objecting to a temporal part of a state, that would depend
> > upon what meaning of "state" you are using.
> >
> > A state (State1) could be a set of properties, in which case a state
> > is timeless, can not have a temporal part, and may be possessed by
> > different entities at the same or different times.
>
> [EJB] I think of the set of properties as a classifier/predicate State1 and
> everything Matthew says is then true of State1, but I agree that people do
> use the term 'state' in this sense.
>
> >
> > A state (State2) could be a situation of some individual being in
> (State1).
>
> [EJB] That is, a slice of space-time in which State1(X) holds for a given
> individual X.
>
> > This could be an instantaneous state (State2a), an extended situation
> > during which the individual is in that state (State2b), or the maximal
> > temporal situation during which the individual is in that State1
> (State2c).
> >
> > A State2a can not have a temporal part. A State2b can have a State2b
> > as a temporal part for which they both share a State1. A State2c can
> > not have a State2c as a temporal part if they both share the same State1.
> >
> > A State2c can have a State2c as a temporal part if the second State2c
> > has a more detailed State1 (e.g., the first State1 is that the oil
> > temperature is between 140C and 160C and the second State1 is that the
> > oil temperature is between 150C and 155C). In this case the second
> > State2c is a temporal part of the first State2c.
>
> [EJB] Ah! This is the problem.
>
> I understand 'S is a temporal part of X' to mean: there is some
> characterization C such that C(X) holds over a time interval T, and S is
> understood to be the triple holds(C, X,T). And S1 is a different temporal
>part
> of X iff S1 = holds(C1, X, T1) for some C1 and T1, where Not (C1 = C) or Not
> (T1 = T). There are clearly other possible relationships of interest, to wit
>C1
> implies C (class C1 is a subclass of C), T1 is a subinterval of T, and S1 is
>a part
> of S2, where X1 is a part of X2, and holds(C2, X2, T1) implies holds(C1, X1,
>T1),
> i.e. a state of the whole (X2) implies a state of a part (X1). [this is what
>I
> meant about the need for axioms that describe isTemporalPartOf.]
>
> >From the example below, Matthew apparently uses 'S is a temporal part
> >of
> X' to mean: S is a state/situation that involves X in some role, which is
>just a
> generalized view of "some C(X) holds".
>
> But what Matthew says here is that S2c is a temporal part of S (not X!) if
>S2c =
> holds(C1, X, T1) and C1 implies C and T1 is-within T! I would expect that
> temporalPartOf(S2c, S) would mean there is a C1 and a T1 such that
> holds(C1, *S*, T1) ! In the generalized view, S2C (X having the narrower
> temperature range) plays a role in S (X having the broader temperature
> range). I don't understand the ontological commitment that permits S2c to
> be viewed as playing a role in S. So, I don't know what temporalPartOf
> means!
>
> [MW>] I hope it is clear by now. There are no conditions on what states are
> valid. A state is ANY temporal part of a whole life individual that is of
>interest
> for any reason. Interesting ones may overlap, or not, may run in sequences,
> or not. There really are no rules about what is valid beyond being a temporal
> part.
> > ...
> > > [MW] Consider the temporal part of pump with serial no. P1234
> > > (materialized physical object) that is installed as tag 21P101
> > > (functional physical object). It is a temporal part of each of
> > > these,
> not just one.
> > > The thing to note is that they are two different types of whole life
> > > individual, but you need all the elements of the type.
>
> If S is a temporal part of the FPO named 21P101, then S =
> holds(instantiatedByP1234, 21P101, T) for some T. And if S is a temporal part
> of the Pump named P1234, then S = holds(placedAs21P101, P1234, T) for
> the same T. What we really have here is that instantiatedBy(fpo, po) =
> placedAs(po, fpo), or more accurately: forall (T) instantiatedBy(fpo, po,
> T) iff placedAs(po, fpo, T). So the State S is an instance of both ternary
> relations. And S can be described as a temporal part of both the pump and
> the place. And to carry any semantics, S must be an instance of the class
> Placement, or something like that. Further, the fact that S is a temporal
>part
> of Pump and Place tells me how to formulate the relation, but only because
> the 'types' of the arguments to placedAs are disjoint.
>
> [MW>] There is no instantiated by here. Identity for spatio-temporal extents
> is the spatio-temporal extent, i.e. if two individuals have the same spatio-
> temporal extent, they are the same object. So the temporal part of the
> installed pump is also a temporal part of the tag it is installed as.
> There are not two spatio-temporal extents with a relationship. The Tag in
> turn consists of the temporal parts of the equipment installed.
>
> Now, let us consider flowsInto(equipment1, equipment2).
> [MW>] What does this mean? That equipment1 has a connection to
> equipment2?
>
> And suppose that at time T, Pump P1234 is connected to HeatExchanger
> H5678, in such a way that the process fluid flows from P1234 to H5678. Then
> we have a FlowsInto state that is a temporal part of P1234 and a temporal
> part of H1234 for the same time interval T. But which is the source and which
> is the destination? They are both Equipment, so we can't tell.
> [MW>] In principle, the flow can be either way, and in practice, you need to
> understand the pressure differentials in the system, usually generated by
> pumps and compressors, but occasionally by gravity. So you can do some
> reasoning once you understand what those are.
>
> This is admittedly contrived. But the problem is intrinsic.
> [MW>] Yes, but not difficult.
>
> The state that is a temporal part of two things represents a ternary relation
> that involves them in distinct roles over a common time interval.
> [MW>] A state may include temporal parts of multiple objects, and so it may
> look like an n-ary relation, but it is a state, and not an n-ary relation.
> It might have been modelled as an n-ary relation in a 3D approach, so this
> relationship between different ways of modelling is worth noting.
>
> In general, the types of the non-temporal arguments to the ternary relation
> represented by the state may not be distinct. So the relationship between
> the State and the participants is not just isTemporalPartOf, but rather some
> refinement of it that represents each role in the ternary relation.
> [MW>] Yes. Much the same as in an activity (which also consists of the
> temporal parts of its participants playing roles in the activity). Indeed you
> should check that you are not talking about an activity instead of a state. A
> state is something about which what you say does not change during the
> period of the state, whereas an activity is something that brings about
> change to something (e.g. brings about a new state in something).
>
> Using a language in which the only relationship to a State is
> 'isTemporalPartOf', [MW>] Then you are obviously not using ISO 15926.
>
> the solution will be to create things that are instances of a class
>representing
> a role in the state, and make the role things temporal parts of the role
> players and also temporal parts of the state thing.
> [MW>] They may not be temporal parts of the state thing. If you have a state
> that consists of a temporal part of a pump and a temporal part of a heat
> exchanger, then those states are spatial parts of the whole, not temporal
> parts.
>
> So we have a FlowSource that is a temporal part of the Pump and the
> FlowsInto state, [MW>] I'm still not sure what you think Flowsinto actually
> means in plain English.
>
> and FlowDestination that is a temporal part of the HeatExchanger and also a
> temporal part of the FlowsInto state. Thus the state thing involves things of
> two distinguished types, and the ternary relation can be properly
> reconstructed. It is a work-around, and most modeling languages force such
> contrivances from time to time. But coupled with the above confusion about
> relationships between states, I can't be sure that anyone can reconstruct the
> intent of 'isTemporalPartOf'.
> [MW>] Is temporal part of is very simple, and should by now be clear. What is
> less obvious are all the layers you are trying to impose on it, and the
> reasoning for that, unless you are just trying to make it a lot more difficult
> than it actually is so that you can discredit it.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire,
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (013)
|