Matthew,
Please see in-line. (01)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:55 AM
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes
>
> Dear Cory,
>
> See below.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
> > -----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".
>
> 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. (02)
[[CBC] ] Since this is the most general concept and it is the most general
concept we are looking for - yes. (03)
> >
> > > 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.
>
> 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. (04)
[[CBC] ] Agree, we are saying the same thing. Different "aspects of" are
the different concepts, of the same individual, represented by types. (05)
>
> > Why are we having such trouble with this?
> > Perhaps because we are trying to pick one aspect as dominant?
>
> 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,
>
> MW: No. Types exist. We discover (or invent) them. Concepts are how we
> externalise that discovery/invention.
[[CBC] ] I don't want to go down this rabbit hole. Could we say the thingie
we are naming is the concept of a type? (06)
>
> > I would expect types to be individuals.
>
> MW: Why? They exist outside of space-time. Individuals are things that
> exist inside space-time.
[[CBC] ] These seem like unnecessary and troublesome restrictions about some
"space-time" frame of reference - what I thought you were trying to avoid.
The type concepts "form-674", "love", "asset", "obligation", "France",
"ONTAC" or "rabbit", invented or natural have a life-cycle in time (but not
necessarily space). You can make statements about it. We are talking about
one now - it has an identity ("it" is an it). It has a name. It is an
individual. It is "type". Anything you can distinguish from any other
thing is an individual.
>
> > (You may or
> > may not state
> > this for computability reasons, but let's not loose the fundamentals).
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|