All right John and fellows.
Building an Ontology means define something in its "Substance".
So, No substance, no thing, then no matter of time !
Humans are not eternal, Humanity probably not.
But then it will be "something" other after, and
what we will "have been" is eternal !
So long !
E. B.
> Message du 19/02/14 17:35
> De : "John F Sowa"
> A : "Ontology Summit 2012 discussion"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
> Ed,
>
> Given this rare state of agreement (copy below), I'd like to add
> one more point.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> John
>
> -------- 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
> Reply-To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
> To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
>
> John,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Ed
>
> > -----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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
|