Dear Cory and Barry, (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 Smith, Barry
> Sent: 31 January 2006 17:43
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes
>
>
>
> >
> > [[CBC] ] I have to admin ignorance here; I don't
> understand why these are
> >incompatible. I have been taking this on faith based on the
> deep thought
> >many of you have put into the subject. To the not quite
> casual observer it
> >would seem that both the concept of "Hurricane Rita" as a
> life-cycle object
> >and "Hurricane Rita" as it is now (or at any snapshot in
> time) are valid and
> >compatible, but not the same. (06)
MW: Yes there is both a life-cycle object (spatio-temporal extent) and
any snapshot of it you like, and they are different objects. The
snapshots are compatible and are temporal parts of the former. (07)
>
> BS: Indeed, both Hurricane Rita, the continuant (08)
MW: Notice the move from life-cycle object to continuant, something
that passes through time, rather than being extended in time. (09)
> which moves across
> the ocean, and the process of moving, exist, and to accept the
> existence of both in a good ontology is unproblematic. (010)
MW: Indeed. The difference being that you are not able to recognise
these two as actually being the same (since they have the same
spatio-temporal extent).
>
> > >
> > > MW: Barry is just as entitled to exclude things he does
> not like from his
> > > ontology
> > > as I am. Indeed we both need to exclude some things or
> else they won't
> > > work.
>
>
> BS: I accept both. It is Matthew who is in the business of
> excluding things. (011)
MW: So you accept that physical objects are spatio-temporal
extents as well as 3D continuants then? (012)
MW: I am saying that the underlying nature of physical objects
is 4D. On that you can have whatever 3D snapshots you like. (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)
|