I have been round in these circles with Matthew several
times before.
1. I think an ontology which does not distinguish between processes and
their bearers will at least have this defect: that people not familiar
with high-level metaphysics and/or with the computational advantages
which 4D-ism brings will not understand it, and therefore either not use
it or use it badly (I can supply examples of the latter if
required)
2. As Matthew knows full well, I, like many others, believe that both
continuants and occurrents exist; and that one can adopt a position which
both a 4D and a 3D component. Someone like Matthew can thus embrace just
the former, and leave the rest of us to embrace both.
BS
At 08:07 AM 2/27/2006, you wrote:
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
|