[Top] [All Lists]

[ontac-forum] taxonomy of relationships

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:40:40 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGKEHFGOAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I feel that the discussion between Barry and Matthew is am important one.    (01)

What I would like to see is some senareo developed where status changes in
the structure (parts within a whole) and the function (the behavior of the
whole) is clear.  Specifically I would like to see how a chain of
biochemical reactions might be modeled.    (02)

I know that Barry can identify such an senareo and use his "may I say
'stratified'" taxonomy of relationships.  But, there is a problem that John
has referred to, and which we are all aware; and that problem has to do with
nesting of classes when the object of investigation is not an engineered
system.    (03)

I have seen how some have addressed this nesting by always having three
levels, the middle one being the precise one, and the lower one being the
substances that are aggregated to produce the middle one.  The upper one is
"environmental".    Rough set modeling of economic transactions fits into
this "tri-level" architecture.    (04)

Barry, I am not "thinking" as you and your co-authors do; but I do believe
that you (using the way you think about these relationships) can model
biological event formation and changes in behavior with what you have.  I
expect that I could then "see" how you have done this.    (05)

The "axiomatization" of something, in this case, is highly problematic.    (06)

The domain that Matthew is working with really is reductionist, as are all
"things" in the world of    (07)

large engineering artefacts that has been developed by
the Oil and Gas and Process Plant industries    (08)

and thus I feel that the type of degeneracy (again as Edelman this term)
seem in biochemical reaction chains will not (by design) be seen in large
engineering artefacts.    (09)

Matthew, you said:    (010)

"The kind of inference
you are looking for is quite core to the requirements of such
an ontology.'    (011)

and I guess you can see that I am making an ontological distinction between
the domain of biology and the domain of large engineering artefacts.    (012)

Your comments, both? please    (013)

With respects...    (014)

Paul    (015)

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    (016)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>