RE: Re: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
In a
nutshell, this is what I've been trying to say:
If no
4-space specification is required in either events or processes, yet a
4-space
specification can optionally be attached to both events and processes,
then I am
satisfied with the representations. But I don't want to have to
deal with defaults
unless
I somehow represent that 4-space information is important in the
situation(s)
I want
to represent.
The
issue seems to have clouded by the examples more than it was
clarified
by
them.
Rich
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:51:58
-0400
To: Richard Cooper <rich@valutech.com>, "'Patrick Cassidy'"
<pcassidy@bellatlantic.net>
From: Mike Pool
<mpool@iet.com>
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process --
really different?
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
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 #$Event are *required* to occur at
a location.
I take this back. I suppose that
&%Process is required to occur at a location insofar as it a subclass of
&%Physical. SUMO developers please correct me if I'm
wrong.
Note, also, that the hypothetical
you state is not (at least not obviously to me) itself an event or process,
it may be a state of affairs or some such. Also, thinking about it is
an #$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