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)
|