ontac-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:18:59 -0000
Message-id: <A94B3B171A49A4448F0CEEB458AA661F02A80B11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Barry,    (01)

See below    (02)


Regards    (03)

Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom    (04)

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/    (05)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Barry Smith
> Sent: 25 November 2005 16:12
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] ISO 15926 and BFO
> 
> 
> 
> >More points re ISO 15926 and BFO
> >>
> >>MW: It is of course available in ISO 15926-2, which you can get from
> >>your local national standards body, or from ISO itself. All 
> the definitions
> >>are also present in the web version of the model at:
> >>
> >>http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integra
> tion_schema.html
> >
> >Does this mean that we have to pay 246 Swiss 
> >Francs to see what ISO 15926-2 is capable of     (06)

MW: If you want the explanatory parts yes. The formal parts are freely
available at the web address above. You would also have to invest in
understanding the entity-relationship formalism used.    (07)

> >(and that this is the reason why Matthew wanted 
> >us to fly to London -- to save money?
> >
> >If so, could he not just cut and paste the 
> >relevant section, indicating how the standard 
> >supports simple reasoning about instances and types?    (08)

MW: That is already available at the above site, and I have
pointed you to it.    (09)

> >
> >Should we be considering an ontology as a common 
> >standard which has a 246 Swiss Franc membership fee?    (010)

MW: ISO 15926 is an International Standard, it has already been through
the kind of process that is contemplated here. You will find that anything
worthwhile has a price to pay.    (011)

> >
> >Re my own earlier remarks regarding:
> >>Re John's response to:
> >>
> >>BS> 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.
> >>
> >>That's an excellent principle.  Any axiom that is deleted
> >>from UF will not go away, but it will be available in
> >>modules or microtheories that could be used as needed
> >>by various systems.  In effect, the topmost levels of most
> >>ontologies are the most controversial.  Therefore, UF
> >>should have a highly impoverished top level.
> >
> >
> >It reveals a problem however. If only those bits 
> >of the top level are to survive which are agreed 
> >to by everybody, then -- since there are 
> >3-dimensionalists and 4-dimensionalists who 
> >share no (or very few) top-level beliefs in 
> >common about the nature of physical reality -- 
> >nothing will survive. I would suggest, in fact, 
> >that the BFO solution should be generalized. BFO 
> >itself has two modules, one for occurrents, one 
> >for continuants -- entities which exist in two 
> >distinct ways in time. It has no modules for 
> >dealing with numbers or sets; we are happy to 
> >use other peoples' modules. These are all 
> >top-level modules. People should be able to select from these, too.
> 
> 
> I failed to remark that the 3-D and 4-D 
> ontologies in the simple formulation adopted by 
> BFO are compatible with each other. This is 
> because they merely assert that there 3-D and 4-D 
> entities, respectively. E.g. there are hands, and 
> there are handshakes. No normal person would disagree with this.    (012)

MW: Quite so. However, you seem to fail to realise that they
are separate objects in a 4D ontology also. More homework to do.
> 
> The two ontologies become incompatible only when 
> one adopts ( la Matthew) a reductionist clause 
> to the effect that there ONLY 4-D entities (or 
> ONLY 3-D entities) according to choice.    (013)

MW: The move is not made for reductionist reasons in my case.
> 
> Thus, BFO is compatible with all 3-D and 4-D 
> ontologies, but only if the latter are shorn of 
> the associated reductionist clauses (which are 
> what cause all the foundational debates which 
> John, rightly, is exasperated by).    (014)

MW: And the former shorn of their 3D view of processes?    (015)

MW: So in fact it is fine as long as they share your view.
> 
> The BFO ideology holds that a top-level ontology 
> (like a domain ontology) should reflect nothing 
> like a closed world assumption. That is, it 
> should always leave room for the addition of new 
> types as these become recognized as necessary, 
> e.g. because of the advance of science.    (016)

MW: A point where we can agree.    (017)

> BS
> 
> 
> 
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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    (018)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (019)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>