Re: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
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.
But I don't think that either &%Process or #$Event are *required* to
occur at a location.
Note, also, that the hypothetical you state is not (at least not
obviously to me) itself an event or process, it may be a state of affairs
or some such. Also, thinking about it is an #$Event and a
%&Process (presumably) and were it to actually occur it would be an
#$Event or %&Process. Note that in either case many would argue
that such events do indeed have locations, i.e., in some human's
cognitive gunk. (Having said that, I don't disagree with the more
general point, i.e., that we may want to allow for non-localized events
but I'm not sure that either ontology rules them out.)
or
2. Make the mathematics of temporal logic unavailable
to
any class of events, whether spatial or
nonspatial in
description.
I don't think that either ontologies have done
so.
Something seems wrong
in this example.
Could you say a bit more about what's wrong?
HTH,
Rich