>
> 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.
MW:
I have not yet seen from you how you suggest that 3D physical objects and 4D
physical objects exist in the same canonical 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.
MW: As has happened in the past Barry is ascribing views to
me that I do not hold. In fact I do not say anything about what others may
believe. I am quite happy that some people may choose to mix and match 3D and
4D objects in an ontology, as Barry does. However, in an exercise like this, I
do not wish to be forced into the same position. I only expect that a pure 4D
position is one that is also respected.
MW:
I think there are ontologocal beliefs that can be shared by the 3D and 4D community, like
that there are rabbits, without having to first commit to either 3D or
4D.
BS