Dear Cory, (01)
See below. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (04)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> Sent: 30 January 2006 12:23
> To: 'ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> > MW: That sounds reasonable, but we still need something more general
> > that says "here are some things" in an abstract way.
>
> [cbc] That, to me, is type. We can attach intentional
> statements to it or
> an extension to it. It is then the instance and subtype
> relations that make
> "type" interesting and well defined.
> One way to define a type is to make rules, another way is to enumerate
> instances. In this sense "set" is a subtype of "type". (06)
MW: If that includes {my right ear, the moon, rabbit} then I would be
entirely happy. But that is not what I am hearing from others.
>
> > MW: The similarity you see [in 3d and 4d] is because it is
> the same real
> world
> > phenomena that accounts are being given of. But one says physical
> > objects are extended in time and the other says they are not. So
> > the accounts are clearly not compatible. What I would expect is that
> > it is relatively easy to map between them though. So a state of a
> > 4D extent at a point in time can be mapped to a 3D object as it
> > passes through (is indexed at) that same point in time.
>
> [cbc] Yes, so, they are different aspects of the same
> individuals that can
> be mapped. (07)
MW: NO! They are different concepts (to use a dangerous word) of what
an individual is. Each would have all the aspects that are possible. (08)
> Why are we having such trouble with this?
> Perhaps because we are trying to pick one aspect as dominant? (09)
MW: Probably. That at least is what I am trying to avoid.
>
> > >
> > MW: That looks closer to how I would see things, but I suspect
> > you just get different arguments. (By the way it is safer to use
> > individual when you mean things existing in space-time, types
> > can be instances of other types).
>
> [cbc] As we can type conceptual entities and types are concepts in our
> world, (010)
MW: No. Types exist. We discover (or invent) them. Concepts are how we
externalise that discovery/invention. (011)
> I would expect types to be individuals. (012)
MW: Why? They exist outside of space-time. Individuals are things that
exist inside space-time. (013)
> (You may or
> may not state
> this for computability reasons, but let's not loose the fundamentals). (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|