RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Chris,
At 06:40 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam, (Pat,)
>
>In response to Ian's claim that you refer to ("I think Ian commented earlier
>that he considers SUMO basically 3D.") we entered into a discussion in which
>it seemed that he was actually commiting to a 4D position for SUMO (a point
>Matthew West has also made) - though whether Ian accepts this is not
>entirely clear as he has not answered the last message.
>
>My personal suspicion is that concern about these architectural issues -
>e.g. making a clean choice on 3D and 4D - was not considered in the design
>of SUMO.
>
>There seem to me two possible positions here.
>1) An architecural approach that makes choices about 3D and 4D (and
>eternalism and presentism, etc.) is not required - and was not taken.
>2) It is required and was taken.
>
>If SUMO adopted 1), then it would be interesting to known what braod
>principles architected it - if any (apart form Ian's naturalism :-) ).
I'd say #1. But really, I think this whole conversation is off track. If
we are to focus on a document, let's get down to details and comment on
particular terms and axioms. We could talk forever at an informal level
and never get mutual understanding, much less agreement. "Let us calculate!"
Adam
>Regards,
>Chris
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
>Adam Pease
>Sent: 02 July 2003 02:22
>To: Patrick Cassidy
>Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
>
>
>
>Pat,
>
>At 05:27 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>
> >Adam,
> > Concerning your statement:
> >
> > > That entities do not change their class membership over time,
> > > and that classes themselves are reserved for those things which do
> > > not change, is an important guideline.
> > >
> >
> > First, a clarification: Do you consider SUMO 3D or 4D or both?
>
>I think Ian commented earlier that he considers SUMO basically 3D. That
>sounds right to me, although you're welcome to ask him for elaboration.
>
> > The specific question related to your statement above is
> >whether roles (student, dentist) must therefore be treated
> >only as relations, or whether they can also be classes.
> >The latter would seem to require that membership change
> >over time.
>
>Those sorts of roles have been treated as properties. Take a look at
>SocialRole
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=SocialRole&;
>skb=SUMO>
>
> > If roles cannot be classes, then do you consider SUMO
> >classes like "Food" and "BiologicallyActiveSubstance"
> >as *not* being roles which might change for a particular object?
>
>I'm guessing that you're concerned about cases like the same substance
>being used as a floor wax or a dessert topping, but as I see it, it would
>still be a food, just as a table could be used as a chair, or a TV as a
>hammer, but they would still be tables and TVs, respectively.
>
>Adam
>
>
>
> > 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
> >=============================================