RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: StationaryArtifact and Time -- defaults
Dear Pat,
see below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pcassidy@bellatlantic.net]
> Sent: 09 November 2001 16:00
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: Ian Niles; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: RE: RE: StationaryArtifact and Time -- defaults
>
>
> Matthew --
> I agree that "stationary" is not a necessary property of
> many artifacts (especially structures) normally
> thought of as stationary. But it is a **prototypical**
> property which is very useful for reasoning about such
> things, and only occasionally may lead to an incorrect
> inference.
MW: Maybe, but that is not captured in Ian's axioms. They say
that if it is a stationaryArtifact then it never moves, not that
it isn't likely too.
MW: Why not have some axioms that are true instead? Like that
it has some states that are stationary, or that it does not have
motive power (if you can define that)?
> What we don't yet have in SUO is an agreed way to handle
> prototypical relations, and probabilistic assertions
> generally. We needn't get into the morass of worrying
> about default reasoning to agree on some method of
> recording probabilistic information. When we agree on
> a method to record probabilistic or default information,
> then a broad class of "stationary" artifacts and natural
> objects can be described. For the moment, Ian's "stationary"
> class can be used to hold objects which are stationary by
> default, and the class can be refined when the form for
> probabilistic assertions has been agreed on.
MW: This is a big quagmire.
> There are, however, some artifacts that can probably be
> defined as "stationary" even now, such as buildings so large that
> they will surely never be moved, and stay in one place from the
> time they are built to the time the are destroyed.
MW: Well I didn't expect London Bridge to move, but that didn't
stop it happening.
> For some
> reason the World Trade Center comes to mind. "Place" of course
> is always relative to some reference object -- in this case,
> the deep bedrock under Manhattan.
>
> Pat Cassidy
>
> =======================================
>
> West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>
> > Dear Ian,
> >
> > Fundamentally I think that stationaryArtifact is an ill conceived
> > concept.
> >
> > There is a state of beingStationary that artifacts may
> > participate in (relative to some other object - usually the earth,
> > but perhaps say a space-station). But it is not a necessary
> > property of any object that it cannot move or be moved. Even
> > continents move on a long enough time-scale.
> >
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Principal Consultant
> > Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >
> > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> > Internet: http://www.shell.com
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> >>Sent: 08 November 2001 17:19
> >>To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >>Subject: SUO: RE: RE: StationaryArtifact and Time
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Matthew,
> >>
> >> One comment below.
> >>
> >>-Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> >>>
> >>[mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
> >>
> >>>Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 1:59 AM
> >>>To: 'Ian Niles'; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >>>Subject: RE: RE: StationaryArtifact and Time
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Dear David and Ian,
> >>>
> >>>OK so now take London Bridge, presumably a stationary
> >>>artifact, until someone buys it and has it transported
> >>>to the middle of the US.
> >>>
> >>>The same sort of thing happens on a more regular basis
> >>>with Process Plant, yet these are things that would be
> >>>considered stationary in the ordinary sense of not of
> >>>their own volition/design being able to get up and move
> >>>around.
> >>>
> >>>A more appropriate approach is to have a relation
> >>>between an artifact and a location that holds for a
> >>>period, (in 3D speak).
> >>>
> >>I think everyone agrees with this. The question is how to
> >>precisely specify
> >>this period. If you think a period other than a
> >>'StationaryArtifact''s
> >>existence can be precisely specified and that it will allow
> >>us to weed out
> >>the counterexamples you mention above, your ideas would be greatly
> >>appreciated.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Matthew West
> >>>Principal Consultant
> >>>Shell Information Technology International Limited
> >>>Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >>>
> >>>Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> >>>Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> >>>Internet: http://www.shell.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> >>>>Sent: 07 November 2001 21:56
> >>>>To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >>>>Subject: SUO: RE: StationaryArtifact and Time
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Hi David,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for pointing this out. I think we need to
> >>>>revise the axiom
> >>>>as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>(=>
> >>>> (and
> >>>> (instance ?ARTIFACT StationaryArtifact)
> >>>> (equal (WhereFn ?ARTIFACT ?TIME1) ?PLACE1)
> >>>> (equal (WhereFn ?ARTIFACT ?TIME2) ?PLACE2))
> >>>> (equal ?PLACE1 ?PLACE2))
> >>>>
> >>>>How does this sound?
> >>>>
> >>>>-Ian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>From: David Whitten [mailto:whitten@lynx.eaze.net]
> >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:22 PM
> >>>>>To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >>>>>Subject: SUO: StationaryArtifact and Time
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I was browsing the SUMO and found the following axiom:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>http://128.136.11.33:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SA&skb=Merge&id=2717
> >>
> >>>>> (=>
> >>>>> (instance ?ARTIFACT StationaryArtifact)
> >>>>> (exists
> >>>>> (?PLACE)
> >>>>> (forall
> >>>>> (?TIME)
> >>>>> (equal (WhereFn ?ARTIFACT
> >>>>>?TIME) ?PLACE)
> >>>>> ) ) )
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Now, as I read this, it says that the Artifact which
> >>>>>
> >>happens to be
> >>
> >>>>>Stationary is guaranteed to exist for all time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If I was trying to list stationary artifacts, ie:
> >>>>>(documentation StationaryArtifact "A &%StationaryArtifact is
> >>>>>an &%Artifact
> >>>>>that has a fixed spatial location. Most instances of this
> >>>>>
> >>>>&%Class are
> >>>>
> >>>>>architectural works, e.g. the Eiffel Tower, the Great
> >>>>>
> >>>>Pyramids, office
> >>>>
> >>>>>towers, single-family houses, etc.")
> >>>>>
> >>>>>by definition, It seems reasonable to say that:
> >>>>>(instance EiffelTower StationaryArtifact) holds to be true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Since I know that (equal (WhereFn EiffelTower AD2001)
> >>>>>
> >>ParisFrance)
> >>
> >>>>>However, the (forall (?TIME) ...) seems to say that the
> >>>>>
> >>statement
> >>
> >>>>>(equal (WhereFn EiffelTower OneMillionBC) ParisFrance)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>However I don't believe that this is true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Is this related to the quantifier over time issues that Pat
> >>>>>
> >>>>Hayes was
> >>>>
> >>>>>talking about?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I know that since (domain WhereFn 2 TimePoint) that the
> >>>>>
> >>>>variable ?TIME
> >>>>
> >>>>>is an instance of TimePoint, and assume that OneMillionBC
> >>>>>
> >>>>and AD2001
> >>>>
> >>>>>are both instances of TimePoint.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>David Whitten (713) 791-1414 ext 6116
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> =============================================
> Patrick Cassidy
>
> MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> 735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
> Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>
> internet: cassidy@micra.com
> =============================================
>