RE: [uos-convene] Here we go again

["West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Barry,

 

See below.

 

Regards

 

Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
Sent: 27 February 2006 18:31
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Here we go again

\

MW: I think we have explored this option, and it doesn't seem to me to work.

...

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).

This means that everyone has to embrace a position that is metaphysically reductionist, either asserting that: everything is 4D, or asserting that everything is 3D.  

 

MW: That is not my intention. By 3D I mean essentially what you are proposing with 3D continuants and 4D occurrents together with types whose membership may change over time. By 4D I mean essentially 4D processes, physical objects and their temporal parts together with sets with unchanging membership.