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

["John Yanosy Jr." <jyanosyjr@xxxxxxxxx>]

It does seem to me that space and time are general concepts that can apply to almost any other concept in an ontology.  Would process and event be sufficient for us to use to associate time or space with all other concepts that have this need in your ontology?

For the medical record example,

Would there be an case where the medical exam instantiated an Event, which resulted in a Description of the Event. Then if Event included Time and Space this could be specialized as another concept Called MedicalExam. A Process could be defined for a Diagnostic and Treatment Protocol based on the results of the Exam.

Is the temporal information associated with the Event sufficient for al of the temporal elements, probably not since we need the age of the patient at the time of the Event. There may be other temporal information associated with the exam itself, such as whether there was fasting for 24 hours prior to the event, for a colonoscopy. How about the amount of time spent by the medical practitioner for billing purposes.

This is where the context of the ontology provides relevant insights about which temporal elements are of relevance, for example a legal court may be interested in the age of the device used in an examination and date/times of scheduled maintenance and compliance if there was a malpractice suit. This type of information relationship would not necessarily be discoverable except by implication of location and date/time values.

I can see where linking could enable relationships for unintended applications of an ontology. From my perspective the ontology has an intended pragmatic purpose and has within itself concepts and relations to enable capture and representation of knowledge for that purpose. Other temporal and spatial relationships outside that purpose may not be discoverable or linkable?

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

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".

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.

-Cory

> -----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/

_________________________________________________________________
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/

--

Peace be with you,
John A. Yanosy Jr.

Mobile: 214-336-9875

eMail: jyanosyjr@xxxxxxxxx

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jyanosyjr

_________________________________________________________________
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)