RE: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?

[Richard Cooper <rich@valutech.com>]

Title: RE: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?

Adam Pease wrote:
>
> Rich,
>
> At 08:59 AM 6/13/2003 -0700, Richard Cooper wrote:
>
> >Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> > > > However, in OpenCyc, while I can say
> > > >
> > > >         (#$objectFoundInLocation #$MySwissArmyKnife
> #$MyLivingRoom)
> > > >
> > > > I cannot say
> > > >
> > > >         (#$objectFoundInLocation
> > > &$MikeReprogramsHisVCROnJune102003 #$MyLivingRoom)
> > > >
> > > > or even:
> > > >
> > > >         (#$inRegion &$MikeReprogramsHisVCROnJune102003
> > > #$MyLivingRoom)
> > > >
> > > > because #$MikeReprogramsHisVCROnJune102003 is not an
> > > instance of #$SpatialThing or #$SpatialThing-Localized.
> > > >
> > > > In OpenCyc one uses a different predicate, #$eventOccursAt,
> > > to relate events to the places at
> > >  > which they occur, but it is neither a generalization nor a
> > > specialization of the predicates
> > >  > used to specify relative spatial positions of physical objects,
> > > i.e., #$inRegion and its
> > >  > specializations.  Events or processes are not located
> in the same
> > > way that physical objects are
> > >  > in OpenCyc; they are in SUMO.
> > >
> >
> >Not having learned the complexities of OpenCyc or SUMO, it
> >seems bad design to either
> >
> >1. Require events to occur at locations (in regions) because
> >    there are events that are not spatial at all, e.g.,
> >    "what if Bob thought about Mary's birthday party?"
> >    is a hypothetical, with no spatial relationships at all.
> >    It shouldn't be necessary to represent this in any
> >    spatial way.
>
> Thinking occurs in a mind, which is located in space and
> time.  The thought
> itself is an abstract proposition, but the event of thinking
> clearly has
> spatial aspect.
>
> Adam

Bob's act of thinking about Mary's birthday party may have
a spatial aspect, but that isn't relevant to the hpothetical,
and is therefore unnecessary additional information.  There
is no need to consider where Bob might be when and if Bob
thinks the thought hypothesized about.  Its like having to
know the 4-space location of every atom in a cloud of gas
confined in a box.  The pressure can be adequately modeled
by PV = nRT without knowing that much detail. 

The important thing people do, which we seem to have difficulty
making machines do, is to simplify the problem until only the
important aspects of the situation remain.  Then we can think
clearly about ways to achieve a defined situation.  Given two
situations, we can plan actions leading from one to another.
If it isn't necessary to know the 4-space location of Bob's
thinking event, it shouldn't be necessary to represent the
fact that we do (or do not) know the 4-space location. 

On the other hand, if the 4-space location is indeed relevant,
then we should be able to represent it, and to use that information
in finding the action sequence that moves from the start situation
to the end situation.  So the problem, not the representation,
should be empowering descriptions of the situation.  It shouldn't
be necessary to represent spatial information in every situation,
but it should be possible.  Otherwise, the ontolgy is flawed
for some applications. 

JHMO,
Rich