John F. Sowa wrote: (01)
>
> 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; (02)
It would be a mistake to make claims without backing them up with actual
axioms. (03)
PSL (which contains an axiomatization of situation calculus as one of
its theories)
is a first-order axiomatization that has been proven sound and complete
with respect
to a set of intended models. This axiomatization has been used in numerous
semantic integration platforms as well as theorem proving
implementations for
reasoning about activities. (04)
I have not seen a comparable first-order axiomatization of the pi-calculus. (05)
It is also misleading to say that situation calculus is used to reason
about time.
A time ontology is used to reason about time; the situation calculus is
used to
reason about activities, their preconditions and effects. (06)
> it would be
> a mistake to insist on either 3D or 4D treatments
> of space-time; (07)
Again, where are the axioms that distinguish the 3D vs 4D approaches? (08)
>
> 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.
>
Show me the axioms!! (09)
- michael (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|