uos-convene
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [uos-convene] Beginnings of a draft Upper Level Ontology

To: "Upper Ontology Summit convention" <uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:07:53 -0000
Message-id: <A94B3B171A49A4448F0CEEB458AA661F02FC9D33@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Barry,
 
See below.
 

Regards

Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
Sent: 27 February 2006 00:45
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: [uos-convene] Beginnings of a draft Upper Level Ontology

Here is a proposal with regard to a highest common factor ULO.

Most General Term for Everything Which Exists: Entity  
 
MW: So far so good :-) 

An ontology is a representation of types of entities; all types have instances. 
 
MW: We go wrong immediately for commonality with 4D. 

Top-level Dichotomy

continuant (an entity which endures as one and the same through time
while undergoing changes, e.g. organisms, plans, color-qualities)

occurrent (an entity which unfold through time in successive phases,
what are also often called 'processes') 
 
MW: I can see this working for a common 3D ontology, but of course does not work with 4D since these sorts of things are not mutually exclussive in 4D. If you want to pursue this route, then I'm inclined to suggest trying to work on a common upper 3D ontology, and then map between that and a common 4D upper ontology. I think a common 3D upper ontology would be useful in its own right.
 
MW: However, I also think that this would illustrate what would not be shared between a 3D and 4D ontology, since they are different theories at a very high level. I also think lower level theories of what exists, like biological taxonomies, could be shared, provided they are independent of a particular upper ontology. 

Second-Level Dichotomy

dependent entity (an entity which has one or more bearers or carriers on which
it depends, all occurrent entities are dependent, since they are all processes or changes in one or more
bearer or participant) 
 
MW: As a principle I can agree with this... 

independent entity (entities which do not require bearers; objects, things).

Dependent Continuant Entity can then be divided into:

quality
role
function
shape
plan
etc. 
 
MW: But I would not recognise these as having this pattern in 4D. 

Many dependent continuant entities are realizable in processes of corresponding sorts; for example functions in functionings, programs and plans in executions, etc.

BS
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>