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
MW:
But we do. We have physical objects and activities (amongst other things). But
our physical objects are 4D not 3D.
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)
MW: Well I'm glad that you acknowledge the computational
advantages that the 4D approach has.
MW: I also agree that much of the philosophical
literature on 4 Dimensionalism is couched in language that would not
appeal to many in business -
but presumably you do not beleive that words like continuant and occurrent are
in everyday use either. I have been aware of this for some time - I certainly
have no chance of getting something adopted in Shell if it is not clear and
digestable. So I was particularly pleased that my presentation to ONTAG the
other day on 4 dimensionalism and ISO 15926 received specific comments about
the clarity with which the ideas were presented. So I think this is perhaps a
barrier that we are now able to put behind us.
MW: By the way, there are not so many people who
understand 3Dism either, and/or use it badly. The examples are also
plentiful.
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.
MW: I think we have explored this option, and it doesn't
seem to me to work. Either I or you seem to be innevitably confonted with
something that is unpalatable, and I have no desire to either accept this for
myself or force it on others. I also think that trying to combine them will
just cause confusion.
MW: So let me propose a new
approach:
1. A 4D ontology (just the core bits that make it
4D).
2. A 3D ontology (just the core bits that make it 3D - in
this context I like what you propose)
3. A mapping between the two.
4. A number of upper domain ontologies that can be added
to either a 3D or 4D core. (Taxonomies are likely to be easiest to do this
for).
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
- 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