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/
> >
> > > 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.
>
> [[CBC] ] Since this is the most general concept and it is the
> most general
> concept we are looking for - yes. (05)
MW: That would work for me then. But I think there are others to
be lined up behind that intent.
>
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> [[CBC] ] Agree, we are saying the same thing. Different
> "aspects of" are
> the different concepts, of the same individual, represented by types.
>
>
> >
> > > 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. (06)
MW: Me neither. (07)
> Could we
> say the thingie
> we are naming is the concept of a type? (08)
MW: Better still. There is this thing that we call "type".
>
> >
> > > 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. (09)
MW: This is using individual the way I would use thing (absolutely
anything). (010)
MW: setting relations/relationships aside it is normally uncontroversial
to say that there are things that have instances/members, and things
that don't (ignoring the empty set for the moment). Rabbit is an example
of the former, I am an example of the latter. Since some things that
are instances can themselves have instances, it is relatively
commonplace to refer to things that don't have instances as individuals. (011)
MW: So we might reasonably conclude that there are three major
categories (sorry types) of thing, types, relationships, individuals.
If we were very lucky, we might even agree that these were mutually
exclusive, but that may be pushing my luck. (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|