ontac-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] taxonomy of relationships

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:46:47 -0000
Message-id: <A94B3B171A49A4448F0CEEB458AA661F02A80B0F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Paul,    (01)

I don't really follow what you are saying. See questions below.    (02)

Regards    (03)

Matthew    (04)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul S Prueitt
> Sent: 25 November 2005 22:41
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: [ontac-forum] taxonomy of relationships
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that the discussion between Barry and Matthew is am 
> important one.
> 
> 
> 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.    (05)

MW: Can you give an example of what you mean?
> 
> 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.    (06)

MW: Can you give an example of what you mean?    (07)

> 
> 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.    (08)

MW: Can you give an example of what you mean?
> 
> 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.
> 
> The "axiomatization" of something, in this case, is highly 
> problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The domain that Matthew is working with really is 
> reductionist, as are all
> "things" in the world of
> 
> large engineering artefacts that has been developed by
> the Oil and Gas and Process Plant industries
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Matthew, you said:
> 
> "The kind of inference
> you are looking for is quite core to the requirements of such
> an ontology.'
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Your comments, both? please
> 
> With respects...
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologyTaxonomyCo
ordinatingWG    (09)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (010)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>