On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Chris Partridge wrote: (01)
> Joe,
>
> Roughly the possibility of the event in certain circumstances. The
> relation
> to the measurement may be more or less direct. In the case of maximum
> operating temperature, one could argue it is the lack of an event as
> it is
> intended to operate normally provided that the temperature is not
> exceeded.
>
> To illustrate the circumstances point, an example I was given
> recently wrt
> an aircraft was the ability to fly at Mach 2.1. This was dependent
> upon it
> (a) flying under its own steam, (b) in 'normal' weather, (c) in a
> standard
> configuration, etc.
> As this was a contractual requirement, it was important (and worth a
> lot of
> money) to tie down. (02)
What is tricky here is how to decide upon "ability", which has an
implicit embedded modality in it, as you say. As we can't take
instruments into possible worlds, this has to get spelled out in terms
of tests that can be performed in reality. (03)
>
> To reduce this to a common or garden example. You can buy a light
> bulb from
> the supermarket that is claimed will last 2000 hours (its
> specification will
> mention this quantity).
> Now 2000 hours is a period of time. (04)
Period? It is a duration of time, but not an interval of time. (05)
> There seems to be relationship between
> the bulb and the period of time. (06)
Right. Its a relation that might be called 'predictedLife' (07)
> However, it is not clear exactly which period of time is being
> referred to (08)
Sure it is. The period (duration, quantity of time) being *referred
to* is 2000 hours. What isn't so obvious is, what relation can be
assumed to hold between this and the duration of the interval of the
bulb's actual lifetime. But that question is outside our scope here, I
believe: it would belong in a discussion of legal warranties and
specifications and so forth. I'm going to guess that it involves
probabilities, for example, and it certainly would need a bridge over
the notorious tar-pit of 'normality'. (09)
> -
> as the bulb may break in an accident or be thrown away well before
> it is
> used for 2000 hours. And in these case we do not say that it could
> not in
> principle have this property. Also, it may only last, say, 1500
> hours, but
> this not be a breach of the claim as the temperature in the room was
> not
> normal.
>
> The relation here seems much more indirect that say the relation
> between
> Descartes and the length of his life - in Descartes' case one would
> be happy
> to say his life was just that long. (010)
I guess this is the part I just don't get. You seem here to be using
'indirect' to mean something like 'complicated'. But why is one of
these more 'direct' than another? I can't perceive any real difference
of 'directness' among *relations*. And I've never seen any relational
logic which attempts to formalize such a directness spectrum. (011)
> (012)
But OK, suppose we agree that some relations (that we need to refer to
or use in our ontology) have a more 'direct' relationship than others
to actual acts of measurement. I believe that is what you are saying,
above. What follows from this? What consequences does it have for the
business of writing ontology content? Do we need to use a logic which
recognizes a distinction between two kinds of relation, perhaps a
strongly typed second-order logic, to adequately express these
subtleties? I sure hope not :-) (013)
Pat (014)
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
> Chief Ontologist
>
> Mobile: +44 790 5167263
> Phone: +44 20 81331891
> Fax: +44 20 7855 0268
> E-Mail: partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> BORO Centre Limited
> Website: www.BOROCentre.com
> Registered in England No: 04418581
> Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on Thames,
> Oxfordshire RG9 2AR
>
> This email message is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It
> may be
> privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended named
> recipient
> of this email then you should not copy it or use it for any purpose,
> nor
> disclose its contents to any other person. You should contact BORO
> Centre
> Limited as shown above so that we can take appropriate action at no
> cost to
> yourself. All BORO Centre Limited outgoing E-mails are checked using
> Anti
> Virus software.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-std-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Collins
>> Sent: 02 October 2009 15:29
>> To: uom-ontology-std
>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] "Indirect property" - more
>>
>> I am afraid that I'm not quite clear on the definition of "direct"
>> and
>> "indirect" with respect to quantities. Re-definition in terms of
>> "manifestation"
>> and "dispositional" don't help me much.
>>
>> Perhaps if I try to parrot back what has been discussed in my own
>> terms,
> you
>> can
>> tell me whether or not I've got it.
>>
>>
>> A direct quantity is an estimate of an attribute of a physical object
>> determined
>> by an actual measurement event.
>>
>> An indirect quantity is a hypothetical estimate of an attribute of a
> physical
>> object, not referring to an actual measurement event, but to the
> possibility
>> of
>> such an event.
>>
>>
>> jbc
>> --
>> _______________________________
>> Joseph B. Collins, Ph.D.
>> Code 5583, Adv. Info. Tech.
>> Naval Research Laboratory
>> Washington, DC 20375
>> (202) 404-7041
>> (202) 767-1122 (fax)
>> B34, R221C
>> _______________________________
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (015)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|