After careful reading, I share everything below, and hope that everyone will
become able to use it as guidelines !
Best wishes !
E. B.
> Message du 19/02/14 22:54
> De : "Matthew West"
> A : "'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> Matthew,
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> [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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The ontological commitments are clear.
> [MW>] Well we are nearly there.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|