>
> MU> I heartily disagree. I think this is a good paragraph. In
> fact, I'm
> confused Matthew as to what exactly you disagree with. You
> are not clear
> about that. Your comment don't suggest obvious conflict.
> --
MW: I don't think there is a set of basic concepts that can be
agreed
to by all the convened upper ontologies. In particular the
discussions
we have had around Pat's strawman have lead me to conclude that what
is really common to 3D and 4D ontologies at the upper level is very
small unless you are going to impose on one or other community
something
unpalatable to them. I would not consider that to be a useful
outcome.
MW: There is a clear conflict between 3D physical objects that pass
through
time and have no temporal parts, and 4D physical objects that are
extended
in time and have temporal parts, and the knock on effects from this
means
that what can really be shared at the upper level is minimal (as far as
I
can see thing, and some very vague idea of a collection with
instances).
BS: Objects don't conflict. People conflict. It is, as several
representatives at this summit demonstrate, perfectly possible to embrace
both 3D and 4D entities in the same ontology. Matthew, however, has
reductionist conceptions, of 3D-ism and of 4D-ism, respectively, which
means that, for him, anyone who embraces 3D entities can never share
ontological beliefs in common with anyone who embraces 4D entities, and
vice versa. It would be sad if Matthew's views on this turned out to be
held only by him.
BS
|