ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Michael Gruninger <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:05:35 -0500
Message-id: <20140219170535.Horde.SFnQPimiuf3qiv_ItcJF7A2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hello Ed,    (01)

that's actually not correct.
PSL-Core  
(http://code.google.com/p/colore/source/browse/trunk/ontologies/psl_core/psl_core.clif)
essentially imports an ontology of timepoints.
This is not an abstraction -- it is a time ontology that is a module
within PSL-Core.    (02)

- michael    (03)


Quoting "Barkmeyer, Edward J" <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx>:    (04)

> 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/    (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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>