Re: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
I would like try to resolve the specific question of
whether in our standard ontology a 3D Event will
necessarily have a location in Space (it seems to be
agreed that Events have a location in Time).
In John's note he suggests inclusion of both 3D
and 4D events in the ontology. I agree. But I am
unclear as to John's position on the definition
of the 3D Event.
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> There is no need to vote, when there is a much
> simpler way to accommodate the options.
>
> > What I suggest is that the group forces a vote on
> > important definitions, such as that of "Event."
>
. . .
>
> To take the example of "event", there is no need to
> force a decision. The ontology can simply include
> three types: Event4D, Event3D, and a generic Event,
> which includes Event4D and Event3D as subtypes.
>
OK. These are important issues that we should
proceed to soon. I am only hoping that we can
resolve what should be a simple question before
proceeding to those other issues.
As to the 3D Event, we have an option: is the
spatial location relation marked as "necessary" or not?
If necessary, then every instance of Event in a
knowledge structure will be marked as having *some*
location. That location can be unknown, or default,
or may be specified within the knowledge base.
Can we have both "necessary" and "optional" locations
in one logically consistent ontology? In this case,
I think so, by creating a parent class of 3D Event which
has only a time location ("TemporalEvent"), and a subclass
that has both time and spatial necessary locations
("SpatioTemporalEvent"). But the split 3D Event structure
appears to me to make the translation to 4D more
problematic and I think it should be adopted only if there
is more than one person who thinks it desirable. Also,
it seems to me to be inconsistent with my understanding
of reality and the usual meanings of Events to imagine
that they are not located in space. Even with
spatial location marked as necessary in the SUO,
individual users can still change that to optional
for their own use if such a representation appears to
them to be better, without imposing an unnecessarily
complicated structure on all users.
What I would like to know is how many participants in this
discussion think that the SUO we adopt should have 3D Events
which do not necessarily have some location in Space? Are
there enough to warrant making the SUO more complicated by
addition of an extra "TemporalEvent" class above the more
common "SpatioTemporalEvent"?
Pat
=============================================
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
=============================================