Dear Barry, (01)
Can I just check this: (02)
> > For example, a general ontology should be neutral with
> > respect to 3-D or 4-D models of space-time, situation
> > calculus vs. pi calculus, or continuant-based vs.
> > process-oriented ontologies.
>
> I agree. BFO has two modules, one 3-D (defined for representing
> continuants), one 4-D (designed for representing processes), together
> with relations between them. Users are welcome to use either both
> modules together, or just one of them, according to preference. (03)
Previously, your position has been that physical objects must be dealt
with as occurants (admiting that their life-process was a continuant).
And that certain things could only be said within the 3D view. (04)
Do I correctly understand that you have changed this position to admit
that a pure 4D view is allowed? (05)
Regards (06)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (07)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (09)
|