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 (à 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)
|