|
Dear John F. Sowa, and All of the Ontology Summit Track, Hello !
I receive almost from the beginning all the Messages from Peter Yim and All, and I had interfere
somewhat last year, but remained silent for several reasons, quite a long time.
The "title" of this track is clear : "The tools are not the problem (yet)" !
Unfortunately, Humans needs always "Tools" !
John Sowa is right when he says that :
<<It is possible (and I believe preferable) to specify states and
> processes as abstractions. There is no need to assume anything
> about a physical time or space (4D, 3D, or whatever) in order to
> define a Turing machine ...>> !
But There is need to assume, then, not a physical, but a Mental Space !
I have a personnal computer. It is a Tool !
I loaded a lot of "Tools" for representations of Ontologies, and others
for representations of Graphs, which can represent Ontologies.
Some are working fine, some doesn't !
I always ask to the people which I discuss with,
"Which Tools are You using currently ?"
We all have common Tools, English, Text Processing and Mailing Tools, ...
If I describe an Ontology in French, then I use an exotic Text processing, ...
Even in English, and with Word, You will receive the Text,
but, OWL provides in my version, only "Tree" Graphs, and,
If I send to you an "Ontology", with then Text and "Picture", and Your Tools can't
"Open" the "Picture" ...
So, lets go to the "core" question !
"Process", "State", "Space", are words, the "Mental Tools" to "picture" things, fact, about,
here, some "ontology".
"The Universe" supposedly infinite, I prefer for example in French "Monde" (i.e. world)
instead of "Univers" (i. e. universe).
Does it matter so much ?
No, here end this time.
But, in French, we name a Mathematical 'Primitive' called "Ensemble", then, in France,
but in the English speaking world, it is "Set".
The Mathematicians had to make sure that these two words are "perfect"
synonyms, as Demonstrations must be equivalent in any country !
"1D", "2D", "3D", "4D", ... Spaces, then with 1, 2, 3, 4, ... Dimensions, ...
What is "Physical" there ?
Dimensions, Space, ... are already "Abstractions", Mathematical abstractions !
And can belong to Mental Processes, Spaces, States, end so on ...
So, The only "physical" here is the keyboard I am Typing on, and my computer !
After, I can be willing to represent some Real, Physical, Human Beeing, say Myself, or You,
or to think to an "Abstracted Human Beeing", "Mister John Doe" or "Monsieur Paul Martin" !
The Computers Tools I am Using then are not "Physical" but depending much more
as John Sowa said, of "Physical Things"
than the "Intellectual Tools", as "Objects", "Predicate", "Copule" and so on
in the Logic Language I am thinking with !
I am sure that Mr Edward Barkmeyer about Matthew's ontology, did not think about
really "Physical Dimensions", as the Dimensions of the Prototypes of the "Kilogramme" in
the Pavillon de Breteuil at Sevres in France !
So, "here", if we just want, for example, just discuss about "what is an ontology", or any
related topic, by Text as I do now, the ""Tool" is (almost) never "the" problem !" !
If i only go to try to give to You My Ontology about Systemics, the
"Tool", beginning by somenthing far from concretely physical as a Natural Tongue,
upward to the Kind of Computer,
Every "Tool" Is Always The Problem !
Still reading your track sometimes, with interest usually ...
Eric Beaussart.
> Message du 19/02/14 08:12
> De : "John F Sowa"
> A : ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
> On 2/18/2014 7:00 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:
> > As I now understand it, in your model, the universe effectively
> > consists of states and abstractions...
> > The ontological commitments are clear.
>
> I agree.
>
> But the point I was trying to make is that Matthew's ontology
> defines states in terms of a 4D universe.
>
> It is possible (and I believe preferable) to specify states and
> processes as abstractions. There is no need to assume anything
> about a physical time or space (4D, 3D, or whatever) in order to
> define a Turing machine, a finite-state machine, or a Petri net.
>
> If you define states and processes abstractly, you can use them
> to specify computations, data structures, etc., independently
> of anything physical.
>
> If you do so, you can formalize communications among systems
> in a purely abstract way -- independent of any assumptions
> about any ontology of physics, space, time, matter, etc.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|