ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)

To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:35:34 -0500
Message-id: <5304DD56.8080708@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ed,    (01)

Given this rare state of agreement (copy below), I'd like to add
one more point.    (02)

I also agree with Matthew that a 4D ontology for physical states
and processes is valuable.  But we also need to support the many
ontologies based on a 3D+1 coordinate system.    (03)

With an abstract specification of states and processes, the
spec's for data structures, computation, and message passing
are independent of any assumptions about space and time.    (04)

John    (05)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:41:30 +0000
From: Barkmeyer, Edward J <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>    (06)

John,    (07)

I agree with your position.  As I recall, the basic model in ISO 18629 
the "Process Specification Language" (Gruninger et al.) is just such an 
abstraction, in which 'time' per se is at best implicit.  Additional 
modules of that ontology add 'time' concepts.    (08)

I am also a fan of Ed Zalta's handling of 'states of affairs' and their 
relationship to propositions and truth values, and that model of 
states/events/activities is also independent of 'time' concepts.    (09)

-Ed    (010)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 2:12 AM
> To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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    (011)

_________________________________________________________________
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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>