At 03:12 PM 1/5/2006, you wrote:
>I'm sure you don't need my permission, but since you ask - It is a valuable
>pursuit - go for it :)
>
>Person was just an example on my part also, the point is strong identity of
>concepts that may have a variable set of axioms or terms depending on
>context. This applies to upper ontology concepts as well. (01)
I am going for the upper upper ontology terms, the axioms governing
which (or some of them at least) are not dependent on context.
BS (02)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
>Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:54 AM
>To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
>Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable
>
>At 02:48 PM 1/5/2006, you wrote:
> >Berry,
> >The important consensus that may have been reached is that there will be a
> >modular or context sensitive set of concepts and some way to select those
> >that should apply in a given condition. Assuming that structure we can, of
> >course, work to maximize those concepts that are true without condition and
> >are generally accepted. The good news is we can get started understanding
> >how we are going to modularize/contextualize and also start developing the
> >concepts. So have we reached this consensus?
>
>Am I, and perhaps some others, allowed to work on maximize those
>concepts that are true without condition and are generally accepted?
>If so, then of course others are free to work on the modular side of
>things, too.
>
>
> >I do have a concern about your example, below. It seems to imply that you
> >use a different definition of "person" depending on your needs - this is
>not
> >user friendly.
>
>I gave person merely as an example. I did not claim that it would be
>part of the upper level ontology on which agreement can be reached.
>BS
>
>
> > Consider that we have specified that a "member" of a health
> >club is a person. We need this to be a simple process with one definition
> >of person - not start asking if we mean 3D or 4D persons. Components using
> >logics that operate on that specification or related Ontologies may then
> >want to make further assumptions about THAT SAME PERSON. Another component
> >using another logic may want to make different assumptions about THAT SAME
> >PERSON. For example, the role or aspect of that person as a legal entity
>is
> >very different from the aspect of that person in the physics of using
> >exercise equipment. Aspects imply context, context implies a particular
>set
> >of axioms.
> >We don't (and should not have to) know the "application" when we have
> >selected a concept. We should have strong identity for our concepts with
> >ways to attach appropriate axioms (Context being my approach to that
> >selection). I think this is the same as John's sparse core ontology.
> >-Cory
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> >Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 6:21 AM
> >To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> >Cc: ceusters@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable
> >
> >John takes his pessimistic assumption that the world may be
> >fundamentally inexplicable to imply that it will be a very small
> >upper level ontology upon which we all can agree. From this he infers
> >that we should strive to keep it very small. I, in contrast, think
> >that our job should be to maximize as far as possible the number of
> >axioms on which we can agree, and work from there.
> >
> >Here some proposals, which would be in addition to the many axioms
> >governing dimensionality and before/after which John himself allows:
> >
> >The upper ontology should contain at least the following top-level
> >categories:
> >
> >Independent Continuant
> >Dependent Continuant
> >Process (aka Occurrent)
> >
> >We then have axioms unpacking:
> >
> >Independent Continuant is_a 3 D entity (e.g. me)
> >Dependent Continuant is_a 0,1,2 or 3 D entity (e.g. the color of this
> >bruise)
> >Boundary of Independent Continuant is_a 0,1 or 2 D entity (e.g. my
> >outer surface)
> >Extended Process is a (1,2 or 3)+t D entity (e.g. my life)
> >Boundary of Process is a (0, 1 or 2)+t D entity (e.g. my death)
> >
> >where t stands for the dimension of time.
> >
> >Note that the fact that the ontology contains these three categories,
> >does not mean that everyone who uses it must be committed to using
> >all three. Thus 4-dimensionalists would just use the Process category
> >(and reclassify the examples above accordingly; thus they would not
> >talk about Bill Clinton, but rather about a very slow
> >BillClintonizing process).
> >
> >We would also have axioms such as:
> >
> >No part of an independent continuant is part of a dependent continuant
> >No part of a dependent continuant is part of an independent continuant
> >No part of a process is ever part of a continuant
> >No part of a continuant is ever part of a process
> >Every dependent continuant depends on one or more independent continuants
> >
> >In addition the ontology would distinguish between types (aka
> >universals, classes) (among which the categories mentioned above
> >would be included at the highest level) and instances (aka
> >individuals, particulars), with corresponding axioms formulated for
> >the different <instance, instance>, <instance, type>, and <type,
> >type> relations defined in the OBO Relation Ontology at
> >http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46. Thus for example that,
> >
> > for all instances a, b of independent continuants then
> >
> > a adjacent_to b implies b adjacent_to a
> >
> >Many of the mentioned axioms (and the many which can be formulated in
> >a similar vein) are, of course, trivial, to human beings. But not
> >all. (Thus, for example, an axiom asserting the symmetry of the
> >adjacency relation does not hold on the level of types, and the same
> >holds e.g. for the relation of simultaneity in the dimension of time.)
> >
> >For computers, though, we need to write down even trivial axioms.
> >Let's do that, shall we? Anyone who objects to a specific axiom
> >should then speak up, but perhaps we might all agree to refrain from
> >formulating general embargoes on the very activity of formulating axioms.
> >
> >BS
> >
> >At 05:36 AM 1/5/2006, you wrote:
> > >I received the following offline comment, and I gave
> > >the same response I've been giving for the past
> > >several years.
> > >
> > >John Sowa
> > >
> > >-------- Original Message --------
> > >
> > >Nobody knows exactly how many theories will be needed:
> > >
> > >>But I don't have any good idea **how many** logically
> > >>different theories will in fact be required. I do have
> > >>a strong suspicion that it will not be as many as one
> > >>would suppose after a casual glance at the different
> > >>upper ontologies that people have proposed.
> > >
> > >But there are certain things that are pretty safe bets:
> > >
> > > 1. There will be categories called Time, Space, Object,
> > > Process, etc.
> > >
> > > 2. There will be some assumptions common to all the
> > > axiomatizations: time will have a before and
> > > after, and space will have 3 dimensions.
> > >
> > > 3. But beyond that, all bets are off. It would be
> > > a mistake to adopt situation calculus instead of
> > > pi calculus for reasoning about time; it would be
> > > a mistake to insist on either 3D or 4D treatments
> > > of space-time; it would be a mistake to insist
> > > that objects are "ontologically prior" to processes;
> > > it would be a mistake to say that a vase and the
> > > lump of clay from which it is made must be or must
> > > not be considered different entities.
> > >
> > >That's why the only thing you can insist on is a very
> > >sparse, very limited set of common axioms. At that
> > >level, you can't do much problem-oriented reasoning.
> > >
> > >For more detailed reasoning in specific applications,
> > >you need the problem-oriented modules or microtheories.
> > >
> > >John
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|