Chris, (01)
[Chris Partridge] >
> It seems to me the substance of your argument is that it is not useful
> to re-ify these specific instances of quantitative properties, rather than
> you find it difficult to represent them. Is that right?
>
Right - thus far. But my particular concerns center around making the
ontology close enough to ordinary language to make interpretation of
language as easy as possible. I would be interested in examples of where
such reification actually is more useful than an assertion. (02)
[CP] >
> The issue here is the old 3D/4D issue of change over time. If the
stick/room
> undergoes changes over time then it does not have the length /
> temperature property simplicitur, it has it at a point or over a period
> of time. The representation example you give above does not cater for
this.
>
The issue of 3D/4D should not affect the point I was making, as in the
assertion:
(hasLength Rod23 (meters 1.3))
The entity Rod23 could be a time-slice of a rod (though if it were I would
name it differently), or the entire assertion could be wrapped in a
'isTrueInContext' wrapper that could include the time interval (as well as
other context elements such as possible world, belief system etc). (03)
[CP] >
> My experience is different, in that I have found that systems often
> work more effectively if one does reify them. However, in a 4D ontology,
> this is just a matter of reifying the states that have the property (the
> specific property collapses into the state or that state being an instance
of
> the general property). So, where an room undergoes a series of (step)
> temperature changes - it has a series of states that each are instances
> of their general temperature property.
>
If you are representing the state of the room, are you only representing
the temperature of the room and no other property (e.g. atmospheric
pressure, light intensity) in this illustration? If so, then this seems to
be equivalent to an assertion of a temperature on a time-slice of the room
for each time-slice, in the format I used, and either could be translated
into the other without loss of information. If you find an advantage to the
representation you mention, I would be interested to have (just a little)
more detail. (04)
Pat (05)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-
> std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:54 AM
> To: 'uom-ontology-std'
> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] retitled: magnitude of a quantity
>
> Pat,
>
> > The more substantive issue is whether we want to have a class
> > representing
> > the specific instances of quantitative properties (length of a
> > particular
> > stick, temperature of a particular room at some particular time,
> etc.),
> > inasmuch as (even though they are logically distinguishable entities
> -
> > called 'tropes' in some treatments), I have never been able to find a
> > way to
> > use them to good effect.
>
> It seems to me the substance of your argument is that it is not useful
> to
> re-ify these specific instances of quantitative properties, rather than
> you
> find it difficult to represent them. Is that right?
>
> My experience is different, in that I have found that systems often
> work
> more effectively if one does reify them. However, in a 4D ontology,
> this is
> just a matter of reifying the states that have the property (the
> specific
> property collapses into the state or that state being an instance of
> the
> general property). So, where an room undergoes a series of (step)
> temperature changes - it has a series of states that each are instances
> of
> their general temperature property.
>
> > When I want to assert that a stick has some
> > particular length, I assert, e.g. (in SUMO SKIF notation) (hasLength
> > Rod23
> > (meters 1.3)) where 'meters' is used as a function.
>
> The issue here is the old 3D/4D issue of change over time. If the stick
> /
> room undergoes changes over time then it does not have the length /
> temperature property simplicitur, it has it at a point or over a period
> of
> time. The representation example you give above does not cater for this.
>
> Representationally you can argue for an extra parameter in the
> representation or a reification of the states. When one starts builing
> systems that need to track changes over time, it is easier to take the
> reification option.
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
> Chief Ontologist
>
> BORO Centre Limited
> Website: www.BOROCentre.com
> Registered in England No: 04418581
> Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on Thames,
> Oxfordshire RG9 2AR
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (08)
|