On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Smith, Barry wrote: (01)
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:42:06 +0100
> From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> <ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> <ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote
>
> At 04:34 AM 1/24/2006, you wrote:
> >As a part of the OMG business process metamodel submitters group I can
> >report one item that has NO controversy - processes have parts and these
> >parts change over time.
>
> Not quite true, I'm afraid.
> Certainly processes have parts (subprocesses).
> And which subprocesses of a process are unfolding changes from one
> time to another.
> But neither a process nor its subprocesses change over time.
> This is because a process/subprocess IS a change over time.
> It is continuants (objects) which change over time, by undergoing processes.
> (02)
Most ontologies would enable you to characterize the temporal features of
a process (e.g., its starting and ending points) by referring to a
temporal framework that is independent of the processes themselves.
So, there can be a number of different processes that are occurring
during the same time interval, but which start or end different times as
well. Now, if we have (03)
startingPoint (PROCEES, TIME-POINT). (04)
It seems very odd to have something like: (05)
startingPointAt (PROCESS, TIME-POINT, TIME-INTERVAL). (06)
For example, the start of the 2005 Super Bowl doesn't change across time.
It's always the same time point.(*) (07)
So, for a given process and its subprocesses, we can represent these
temporal features and then query against them to see which of those
processes' temporal extents intersect with a particular time interval. (08)
(*)Of course, people may disagree about what the time point exactly is,
there are issues of when people know this, etc. But those are
independent of the metaphysical treatment. (09)
John C. (010)
> BS
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles D Turnitsa
> >Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11:04 AM
> >To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> >Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote
> >
> >
> >Some comments below concerning the discussion about parts of objects,
> >processes, etc.
> >
> >Original comments below by Barry Smith:
> >-----ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
> > >The details are supplied in full in:
> > >
> > > http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/SNAP_SPAN.pdf
> > >
> > >Basically, all instance-level x part_of y
> > >assertions for 3D objects are indexed by times.
> > >This is not necessary for 4D objects, since
> > >processes do not gain and lose parts over time.
> >
> >My comment here, is concerning processes. I can envision a 4D object
> >(process) having component parts (sub-processes?). In that case, should we
> >not also concerning indexing x part_of y (where y is a process) also by
> >time? The alternative seems to suggest that all processes (and
> >sub-processes) are without time boundary.
> >
> >Chuck Turnitsa
> >
> > (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (012)
|