John,
Of course 3d Ontologies are important, but I don't see how this is or could be
a conflict. The model of a thing over its lifetime or a snapshot/phase of a
thing are different. There should be a clear relationship between the lifetime
and the snapshot that is compatible with both approaches. What seems to be
missing in many ontologies (or DBMS) is the explicit statement of which one is
being represented. (01)
As for " data structures, computation, and message passing are independent of
any assumptions about space and time ", I don't see how this could be the case.
Those structures, messages, etc. are about something - either across a limited
timeframe or over all time. It not being explicit does not make it
"independent". (02)
E.g. The weight taken at my last medical exam is a measurement of a snapshot of
me at that time - my medical record can contain many such measurements. The
medical record is intended to represent facts about ME, over all time. (03)
-Cory (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:36 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
> Subject: 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 <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion <ontology-
> summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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/ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (06)
|