Dear Ed, (01)
Matthew, (02)
After some reflection, I understand the ontological model. And yes, the
words have gotten in the way, notably the "part OF" and "state OF" terms. (03)
As I now understand it, in your model,
[MW>] It is not "my" model.
the universe effectively consists of states and abstractions.
[MW>] This is probably the time to reveal another level. What the model
really says is that there are spatio-temporal extents and abstractions
(where the abstractions are classes or relationships). Some spatio-temporal
extents are whole-life individuals. States are situations (spatio-temporal
extents) about which we want to say something that is true for the whole
state. A state may be a temporal part of a whole-life individual, and/or a
spatio-temporal part of (participant in) a state or activity (and these are
among the things we might want to say). (04)
A WholeLifeIndividual is just a state, with some temporal lifetime, that
represents the existence of some 'thing' that is outside the formal universe
of discourse.
[MW>] In what sense do you mean "outside the formal universe of discourse"?
I hope you mean that data instances represent external things, where the
formal universe of discourse is the data world. (05)
So, as a WholeLifeIndividual, Ed Barkmeyer is just the state of my
existence, birth to death and beyond, or whatever part of that is relevant
to the UoD.
[MW>] Yes. Whether e.g. your life starts at conception or birth is a matter
of how life is defined. We do not attempt to determine what whole life
individuals are valid. (06)
The interesting relationship between states is S1 'isTemporalPartOf' S2,
which merges two ideas:
[MW>] Er no. It is just one idea.
- S1 is somehow a physical or logical component of the 'thing' of S2 that
is outside the formal universe, and/or
[MW>] No. This is spatio-temporal part of (composition of individual in Part
2). Temporal part of is a specialization of this.
- the lifetime of S1 (a time interval) is a part of the lifetime of S2.
[MW>] Yes. S1 is not simply a time interval, but S2 for that time interval,
or if you prefer the intersection of S2 and the time interval. (07)
The first of these relationships is "spatial"; the second is "temporal".
[MW>] Quite, or more particularly, the first is spatio-temporal.
"Stonewall Jackson's arm" (the existence of it) is a temporal part of
"Stonewall Jackson" (his existence),
[MW>] No. This is spatio-temporal part of.
if he had it throughout his life.
[MW>] If it was throughout his life, it is a spatial part of (all of life,
part of space).
In fact, he lost it a few days before his death, which complicates the
model.
[MW>] No. That is just a spatio-temporal part of (part of time and part of
space).
The arm played two roles: being part of the man, and having been amputated. (08)
[MW>] It was a participant in the amputation activity, and there is a state
of the arm which is amputated that the activity caused.
So the role of being part of the man is a temporal part of "Stonewall
Jackson",
[MW>] Again, this is spatio-temporal part.
but the role of being amputated is a different temporal part. And those
parts are related by being temporal parts of a WholeLifeIndividual that is
the existence of the arm itself.
[MW>] Yes, that is temporal part. (09)
As a consequence, an event or situation is a 'state' of the world.
[MW>] What you call event, is probably an activity in ISO 15926 (something
that brings about change and consists of temporal parts of its
participants). An event is usually a temporal boundary of a state or
activity in ISO 15926. (010)
A person playing a role in an event is a state of that extra-UoD
'person-thing', and is thus a temporal part of the state that is the
WholeLifeIndividual of that 'person-thing'. At the same time, the state of
the person playing a role in the event is a logical component of the state
that is the event itself,
[MW>] Nothing logical here (or anywhere else) The event (activity) consists
of the states of its participants - that is what the spatio-temporal extent
of the activity is. (011)
and is therefore a temporal part of that event/state, even if the person
plays the role throughout the entire event. (It does not make a difference
whether the lifetimes are the same or different.)
[MW>] Yes. (012)
And, of course, the 'isTemporalPartOf' relationship is transitive,
[MW>] Yes. It is a classical mereology.
because it is always a relationship between states, and either kind of 'part
of' inclusion is a 'temporal part of' inclusion. (013)
An abstract relationship is a 'class' whose instances are the event states
in which such a relationship exists.
[MW>] I'm not sure what you mean here by abstract relationship.
Relationships are abstract (and in particular timeless). When you want to
talk about a temporal relationship between two whole life individuals, you
do this by relating timelessly the states of those individuals for the time
period they are related. (014)
The abstract Role itself is a 'class', and the instances of things playing
the role are states related to the Role class by 'instanceOf'.
[MW>] Roles are indeed classes, and classify the states that are
participants in activities or temporal relationships or states. (015)
The ontological commitments are clear.
[MW>] Well we are nearly there. (016)
Regards (017)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire,
SG6 2SU. (018)
-Ed (019)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:33 AM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> Matthew West wrote:
>
> > If you are objecting to a temporal part of a state, that would
> > depend upon what meaning of "state" you are using.
> >
> > A state (State1) could be a set of properties, in which case a state
> > is timeless, can not have a temporal part, and may be possessed by
> > different entities at the same or different times.
>
> [EJB] I think of the set of properties as a classifier/predicate
> State1 and everything Matthew says is then true of State1, but I agree
> that people do use the term 'state' in this sense.
>
> >
> > A state (State2) could be a situation of some individual being in
> (State1).
>
> [EJB] That is, a slice of space-time in which State1(X) holds for a
> given individual X.
>
> > This could be an instantaneous state (State2a), an extended
> > situation during which the individual is in that state (State2b), or
> > the maximal temporal situation during which the individual is in
> > that State1
> (State2c).
> >
> > A State2a can not have a temporal part. A State2b can have a
> > State2b as a temporal part for which they both share a State1. A
> > State2c can not have a State2c as a temporal part if they both share the
same State1.
> >
> > A State2c can have a State2c as a temporal part if the second
> > State2c has a more detailed State1 (e.g., the first State1 is that
> > the oil temperature is between 140C and 160C and the second State1
> > is that the oil temperature is between 150C and 155C). In this case
> > the second State2c is a temporal part of the first State2c.
>
> [EJB] Ah! This is the problem.
>
> I understand 'S is a temporal part of X' to mean: there is some
> characterization C such that C(X) holds over a time interval T, and S
> is understood to be the triple holds(C, X,T). And S1 is a different
> temporal part of X iff S1 = holds(C1, X, T1) for some C1 and T1, where
> Not (C1 = C) or Not
> (T1 = T). There are clearly other possible relationships of interest,
> to wit C1 implies C (class C1 is a subclass of C), T1 is a
> subinterval of T, and S1 is a part of S2, where X1 is a part of X2,
> and holds(C2, X2, T1) implies holds(C1, X1, T1), i.e. a state of the
> whole (X2) implies a state of a part (X1). [this is what I meant
> about the need for axioms that describe isTemporalPartOf.]
>
> >From the example below, Matthew apparently uses 'S is a temporal
> >part of
> X' to mean: S is a state/situation that involves X in some role,
> which is just a generalized view of "some C(X) holds".
>
> But what Matthew says here is that S2c is a temporal part of S (not
> X!) if S2c = holds(C1, X, T1) and C1 implies C and T1 is-within T! I
> would expect that temporalPartOf(S2c, S) would mean there is a C1 and a T1
such that
> holds(C1, *S*, T1) ! In the generalized view, S2C (X having the narrower
> temperature range) plays a role in S (X having the broader temperature
> range). I don't understand the ontological commitment that permits
> S2c to be viewed as playing a role in S. So, I don't know what
> temporalPartOf means!
>
> [MW>] I hope it is clear by now. There are no conditions on what
> states are valid. A state is ANY temporal part of a whole life
> individual that is of interest for any reason. Interesting ones may
> overlap, or not, may run in sequences, or not. There really are no
> rules about what is valid beyond being a temporal part.
> > ...
> > > [MW] Consider the temporal part of pump with serial no. P1234
> > > (materialized physical object) that is installed as tag 21P101
> > > (functional physical object). It is a temporal part of each of
> > > these,
> not just one.
> > > The thing to note is that they are two different types of whole
> > > life individual, but you need all the elements of the type.
>
> If S is a temporal part of the FPO named 21P101, then S =
> holds(instantiatedByP1234, 21P101, T) for some T. And if S is a
> temporal part of the Pump named P1234, then S = holds(placedAs21P101,
P1234, T) for
> the same T. What we really have here is that instantiatedBy(fpo, po) =
> placedAs(po, fpo), or more accurately: forall (T) instantiatedBy(fpo,
> po,
> T) iff placedAs(po, fpo, T). So the State S is an instance of both
> ternary relations. And S can be described as a temporal part of both
> the pump and the place. And to carry any semantics, S must be an
> instance of the class Placement, or something like that. Further, the
> fact that S is a temporal part of Pump and Place tells me how to
> formulate the relation, but only because the 'types' of the arguments to
placedAs are disjoint.
>
> [MW>] There is no instantiated by here. Identity for spatio-temporal
> extents is the spatio-temporal extent, i.e. if two individuals have
> the same spatio- temporal extent, they are the same object. So the
> temporal part of the installed pump is also a temporal part of the tag it
is installed as.
> There are not two spatio-temporal extents with a relationship. The Tag
> in turn consists of the temporal parts of the equipment installed.
>
> Now, let us consider flowsInto(equipment1, equipment2).
> [MW>] What does this mean? That equipment1 has a connection to
> equipment2?
>
> And suppose that at time T, Pump P1234 is connected to HeatExchanger
> H5678, in such a way that the process fluid flows from P1234 to H5678.
> Then we have a FlowsInto state that is a temporal part of P1234 and a
> temporal part of H1234 for the same time interval T. But which is the
> source and which is the destination? They are both Equipment, so we can't
tell.
> [MW>] In principle, the flow can be either way, and in practice, you
> need to understand the pressure differentials in the system, usually
> generated by pumps and compressors, but occasionally by gravity. So
> you can do some reasoning once you understand what those are.
>
> This is admittedly contrived. But the problem is intrinsic.
> [MW>] Yes, but not difficult.
>
> The state that is a temporal part of two things represents a ternary
> relation that involves them in distinct roles over a common time interval.
> [MW>] A state may include temporal parts of multiple objects, and so
> it may look like an n-ary relation, but it is a state, and not an n-ary
relation.
> It might have been modelled as an n-ary relation in a 3D approach, so
> this relationship between different ways of modelling is worth noting.
>
> In general, the types of the non-temporal arguments to the ternary
> relation represented by the state may not be distinct. So the
> relationship between the State and the participants is not just
> isTemporalPartOf, but rather some refinement of it that represents each
role in the ternary relation.
> [MW>] Yes. Much the same as in an activity (which also consists of the
> temporal parts of its participants playing roles in the activity).
> Indeed you should check that you are not talking about an activity
> instead of a state. A state is something about which what you say does
> not change during the period of the state, whereas an activity is
> something that brings about change to something (e.g. brings about a new
state in something).
>
> Using a language in which the only relationship to a State is
> 'isTemporalPartOf', [MW>] Then you are obviously not using ISO 15926.
>
> the solution will be to create things that are instances of a class
> representing a role in the state, and make the role things temporal
> parts of the role players and also temporal parts of the state thing.
> [MW>] They may not be temporal parts of the state thing. If you have a
> state that consists of a temporal part of a pump and a temporal part
> of a heat exchanger, then those states are spatial parts of the whole,
> not temporal parts.
>
> So we have a FlowSource that is a temporal part of the Pump and the
> FlowsInto state, [MW>] I'm still not sure what you think Flowsinto
> actually means in plain English.
>
> and FlowDestination that is a temporal part of the HeatExchanger and
> also a temporal part of the FlowsInto state. Thus the state thing
> involves things of two distinguished types, and the ternary relation
> can be properly reconstructed. It is a work-around, and most modeling
> languages force such contrivances from time to time. But coupled with
> the above confusion about relationships between states, I can't be
> sure that anyone can reconstruct the intent of 'isTemporalPartOf'.
> [MW>] Is temporal part of is very simple, and should by now be clear.
> What is less obvious are all the layers you are trying to impose on
> it, and the reasoning for that, unless you are just trying to make it
> a lot more difficult than it actually is so that you can discredit it.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
> England and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire,
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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/ (020)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (021)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (022)
|