At 05:18 PM 1/24/2006, you wrote:
>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)
An individual process does not change. It is change. (02)
Can a process type change? Can any type change? This is a hard question. (03)
Can a definition of a process type change? Of course.
Can requirements placed on processes change? Of course. (04)
>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.
>
>This is, of course a different mindset from your dealing with natural
>processes, but there are, of course, intersections.
>
>I think this also serves to further delineate our different use-cases, which
>should be more explicitly defined. (05)
More simply, it means that we need to make clear in each case whether
we are talking about a process instance, a process type, a definition
of a process type. (06)
> We deal with architecture of systems
>(human, organizational and automated systems). (07)
Ontologies deal with (represent) the architecture of reality,
including also (but by no means exclusively) those parts of reality
created by humans. (08)
> 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. (09)
Is the science of thermodynamics essentially an opinion?
Or the periodic table of the chemical elements? (010)
> There is of course
>touch points with the "natural world", but that is not where we have the
>most challenges. (011)
Good. Let's get those right first, then.
BS (012)
>-Cory
>
>
>-----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
>
>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.
>
>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
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|