RE: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
Rich,
I think you're confusing the ability to accommodate a certain kind of
information in a particular ontology, with the requirement of stating such
information. One is not required to state information, such as the spatial
location of a thinking event, in SUMO, but the ontology can accommodate
that information if one desires to state it.
Adam
At 10:20 AM 6/13/2003 -0700, Richard Cooper wrote:
>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