[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Semantic Interoperability: Sowa's Collectionof Modules

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Barry Smith <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:28:41 +0100
Message-id: <>
At 02:47 PM 11/25/2005, you wrote:
>Dear Barry,
>Can I just check this:
> > >     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.
>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.
>Do I correctly understand that you have changed this position to admit
>that a pure 4D view is allowed?    (01)

BFO has not changed in this respect.    (02)

Physical objects are (special kinds of) occurrents, on my 
understanding. But for those people who do not believe in physical 
objects (in this sense), or in any 3-D objects, the full resources of 
BFO's 4-D ontology are available, and these resources are as rich as 
the resources of any other 4-D ontology, e.g. as far as expressing 
e.g. a worm- or very-slow-moving-process view of physical objects is 
concerned. (Just imagine: oil wells are very slow moving processes.)    (03)

Re: the issue whether ISO 15926 can express simple inferences 
involving relations, Matthew responds:    (04)

>MW: I understand your difficulty because you are used to different
>formalisms. I have a sub-relation that has a relationship to the two
>objects that you relate. I can see by inspection, that if I join (in
>relational terms) my two relations I get yours.
>MW: That you do not see this does no make it untrue.
>MW: I will happily take you (or anyone else who is interested) through
>this the next time you are in London, since I guess the gap in
>understanding is too wide for the written word.    (05)

Does this mean that all members of ONTAC-WG have to congregate in 
London every time they want to use the ontology?    (06)

BS      (07)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (08)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>