|
Dear
Barry,
You
are still not both 3D and 4D everywhere. You are 3D in some places and 4D in
others. ISO 15926 is just 4D, and this is a quite legitimate choice, as yours
is. They are still not compatible.
Matthew
[Mike:]
Also, I don't think you will ever get a 'common upper ontology' any
more
than you will ever get a common enterprise ontology or a common
ontology
on any subject among any sufficiently large and diverse group
of
stakeholders. Will this CUO be 3d or 4d? It cannot be both. Or
do you
mean by CUO, a broader lattice of
UOs?
Certainly it cannot be both if 3D
and 4D are interpreted reductionistically, a la Matthew. But Basic Formal
Ontology is based precisely on the idea that one can represent (3D)
continuants and (4D) occurrents within a single framework:
http://www.uni-saarland.de/~pgrenon/down/grenon-tr3.pdf
if
only you are careful to temporally index all the statements within your
ontology about continuants.
Barry
|