Berry,
Actually process in this domain do change, both in terms of the constituents
of the process ( the process IS change ) and the process instance (state of
the process) and in some cases the definition of the process. (01)
In large manufacturing and design processes (E.G. the 747 Airplane) the
process definition is not static, it is designed to adapt to this long
running process. (02)
This is, of course a different mindset from your dealing with natural
processes, but there are, of course, intersections. (03)
I think this also serves to further delineate our different use-cases, which
should be more explicitly defined. We deal with architecture of systems
(human, organizational and automated systems). Our use case is defining
those systems, their constituents, behaviors and interoperation. Most
importantly it is an act of specification - not "understanding the natural
world". Our world is largely derived from the acts and concepts of humans.
Types are, typically DEFINED, not discovered. Ontologies and models are,
essentially "opinions" about things are or should be. There is of course
touch points with the "natural world", but that is not where we have the
most challenges. (04)
-Cory (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 2:42 AM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote (06)
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. (07)
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. (08)
BS (09)
>-----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
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (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)
|