Dear Bill, (01)
BFO does not switch between 3D and 4D views. It takes a 4D position for
processes (occurrents) and a 3D position for physical objects (continuants). (02)
So the BFO position on physical objects is not compatible with the ISO 15926
position on physical objects. To make the point as clear as possible, for BFO
physical objects cannot have temporal parts (states) for ISO 15926 physical
objects do have temporal parts (states). (03)
Further, ISO 15926 allows/requires some activities to also be physical objects,
e.g. you and your living process are the same thing in ISO 15926 (they have
the same spatio-temporal extent and so must be). For BFO this is impossible
since the process is extended in time, but the physical object passes
through it, so the person and their living process are different objects
(that then need to be related). (04)
These are not the only differences, but they are right at the core of the
ontologies, and are the reason why I think it is more productive to keep
3D (e.g. BFO) and 4D (e.g. ISO 15926) as separate core theories that people
can choose from, rather than trying to find something common in them. (05)
At a mid and lower level of ontology I think there is much that can be
shared that might loosely be called taxonomy. So the taxonomy of the anamal
and plant kingdoms. If these are kept as theories independent of whether
our upper ontology is 3D or 4D then they can be used by either. (06)
What I am not in favour of is a fudge. (07)
Regards (08)
Matthew (09)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Bill Andersen
> Sent: 01 March 2006 14:17
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: Re: [uos-convene] Endorsements
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> To the extent that you understand Barry's BFO, could you say which
> parts of 15926 cannot be mapped to it? As far as I understood it,
> BFO was not bicategorial in the classic sense but rather as Barry
> says, where one can switch between 3D and 4D views. I am familiar
> with 4D approaches and some of the thorny issues wrt 3D, but your
> reply on this would be helpful to we who are trying to make sense of
> your (and Barry's) position.
>
> .bill
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 04:14 , West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 wrote:
>
> > 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
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uos-convene-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> > Sent: 28 February 2006 19:18
> > To: Upper Ontology Summit convention; Upper Ontology Summit
> convention
> > Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Endorsements
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> [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
> >
>
> Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> Chief Scientist
> Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
> 3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
> Baltimore, MD 21224
> Office: 410-675-1201
> Cell: 443-858-6444
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> Shared Files:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
> Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
>
> (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (011)
|