RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Chris,
See &%temporalPart
<http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=temporalPart&skb=SUMO>.
Adam
At 09:45 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I too find this a bit tedious, as the 3d / 4D debate is well worn - it just
>seems that people rehash it here - and seem to be confused about the issues.
>
>You have said "Aspects of 4d, such as the ability to state temporal parts,
>are very useful, and clearly compatible with other 3d-ish aspects of SUMO,
>so they are included."
>
>So you are under the impression that SUMO can talk about temporal part of
>objects?
>Maybe you can point to the axioms that support this.
>
>Or what did you mean?
>
>Regards,
>Chris
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
>Sent: 03 July 2003 21:13
>To: Chris Partridge
>Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
>Chris,
> Sigh. Let me recap, and then I hope we can close out this thread. I
>believe that 3d and 4d are not incompatible. See
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/dialog-3d-4d.html> for a
>discussion of this. I agree with Fritz' position.
> Folks asked us to say whether SUMO was 3d or 4d, even though we
>hesitated to take that blunt a position, since I (and I think Ian), do not
>believe that the two are incompatible. But forced to say that SUMO is
>principally one or the other, we said 3d. Aspects of 4d, such as the
>ability to state temporal parts, are very useful, and clearly compatible
>with other 3d-ish aspects of SUMO, so they are included.
>
>Adam
>
>At 07:05 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> >Adam,
> >
> >This is odd.
> >
> >I have checked Ch.6 - where were you looking - the text seems a model of
> >clarity on this.
> >
> >Loux.
> >4D = perdurantist = has temporal parts.
> >3D = endurantist = exists wholly and completely at each of several
>different
> >times.
> >
> >SUMO processes have temporal parts (see documentation/axioms)
> >
> >Ergo
> >
> >?? SUMO processes are *3D* ????, or
> >SUMO processes are 4D
> >
> >Isn't the answer obvious?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Chris
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> >Sent: 03 July 2003 18:46
> >To: Chris Partridge
> >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> >
> >
> >Chris,
> > Ian's definition seems consistent with my reading of Loux, but this
>just
> >points to the difficulty with text, rather than dealing with the axioms.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >At 06:34 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > >Adam,
> > >
> > >I suspect mails have crossed - have a look at my recent reply to Ian.
> > >
> > >To repeat the main points.
> > >
> > >Ian's 'definition' - which you quote - is unusual. The SUMO processes are
> >4D
> > >in the normal sense of being temporally extended, with temporal parts (as
> > >the SUMO documentation/axioms confirm). Consult e.g. Loux metaphysics (or
> > >Barry Smith's BFO) for more - or a Google search. It seems odd that a
> > >temporally extended object should be said to be 3D. It would make sense
>to
> > >stick to the common usages here.
> > >
> > >Also, there is some confusion as how "being completely present at any
> >moment
> > >of their
> > >existence" has been implemented in the axioms. I beleive Ian is getting
> >back
> > >to us on that.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > >Sent: 03 July 2003 18:22
> > >To: mail@chrispartridge.net
> > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > >
> > >
> > >Chris,
> > > I don't see any lack of accuracy in Ian's assertions. The label of
> >"3d"
> > >is imprecise, as it refers to a wide range of approaches to modeling
> > >change. Those approaches have in common the high level notion
> > >"...[assuming] a categorial distinction between objects and processes,
>and
> > >[regarding] the former as being completely present at any moment of their
> > >existence rather than as space-time worms."
> > >
> > >Adam
> > >
> > >
> > >At 06:14 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > >Adam,
> > > >
> > > >Surely there is more than a section in the middle of an old email
>(where
> > >the
> > > >original assertion is made).
> > > >
> > > >I agree with you that things like Ian's assertions are general
>principles
> > > >and important for understanding SUMO (and how to construct the eventual
> > > >SUO).
> > > >
> > > >My concern, as expressed in my emails, was that the this assertion
>seems
> > > >inconsistent with the axioms. And that a more accurate statement would
>be
> > > >helpful for those people trying to understand SUMO and evalute its
> >strategy
> > > >in the context of building a SUO.
> > > >
> > > >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: 03 July 2003 16:12
> > > >To: Chris Partridge
> > > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Chris,
> > > > Ian's assertion that SUMO was generally 3d was one of those places.
> > > >
> > > >Adam
> > > >
> > > >At 08:28 AM 7/3/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > > >Adam,
> > > > >
> > > > >Would it be possible to point to the places where the "general
> >principles
> > > > >and guidelines" have been communicated?
> > > > >
> > > > >Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > > > >Sent: 02 July 2003 23:43
> > > > >To: Chris Partridge
> > > > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Chris,
> > > > > I'm saying that general principles and guidelines exist and have
> >been
> > > > >communicated, but the axioms are the final arbiter, because simple
> >labels
> > > > >and summaries are imperfect.
> > > > >
> > > > >Adam
> > > > >
> > > > >At 11:29 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > > > >Adam,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I do not understand your reply.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Are you saying that there are no general principles that govern
> >SUMO -
> > > >and
> > > > > >you have to learn every axiom to get a grasp of what is going on?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Surely that cannot be true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Regards,
> > > > > >Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > > > > >Sent: 02 July 2003 23:15
> > > > > >To: Chris Partridge
> > > > > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Chris,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >At 11:04 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > > > > >Adam,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I can appreciate your frustration - but I think it is missing the
> > > >issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The first stage is to get an overview, a context. When this has
> >been
> > > > > > >attempted for SUMO - it has not gone smoothly. E.g. is it 3D or
>4D?
> > >We
> > > > >are
> > > > > > >told 3D. We start looking at the detail of the axioms and they
>seem
> > >to
> > > > > > >suggest otherwise. A number of us ask questions - and we still
>have
> > >not
> > > > >got
> > > > > > >to the bottom of this. We are stuck at the first stage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >That's because you're not looking at the axioms. It's unsurprising
> > >that
> > > > > >the general-purpose and imprecise labels don't match the axioms.
> > >You've
> > > > > >gotten an overview label - it's 3D - now look at the details to get
>a
> > > >real
> > > > > >understanding of the formal model. That you find some things that
> > > >support
> > > > > >a 4d view should also not be surprising.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >So it is not a simple matter of division of time - but one of a
> > >natural
> > > > > > >progression. If one gets stuck at the first stage, then one will
> > >spend
> > > > >most
> > > > > > >of one's time at that stage. One should not expect anything
> > >different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Then don't get stuck at the 50,000 foot level. Do some work on the
> > > >ground.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Also, there is another important point. We want to understand the
> > > >impact
> > > > >of
> > > > > > >different choices, given that we have a potential range of
> >ontologies
> > > >to
> > > > > > >'merge'. So, it becomes useful to see how the ontologies have
> > > >implemented
> > > > > > >the choices.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Indeed, but the only way to do that is look at the axioms,
>preferably
> > > >with
> > > > > >a theorem prover on hand. Try some proofs and see how they come
> > > > > >out. Change an axiom and see what that does to your
> > > > > >conclusions. Otherwise you'll never understand the impact of your
> > > >choices
> > > > > >any more than you would writing software and never compiling or
> > >executing
> > > > > >it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Adam
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Regards,
> > > > > > >Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > > > > > >Sent: 02 July 2003 22:44
> > > > > > >To: mail@chrispartridge.net
> > > > > > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > > >Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Chris,
> > > > > > > Yes, labels and summaries can help, and they can be useful
> > >context
> > > > >for
> > > > > > >proceeding towards deeper understanding. It's just that the
> >balance
> > >is
> > > > >off
> > > > > > >here. If we spent 10% of the time on the list discussing general
> > > > > > >principles, and 90% of the time working on embodying those
> >principles
> > > >in
> > > > > > >axioms, then the balance would probably be right. Unfortunately,
> > >right
> > > > >now
> > > > > > >the ratio is something like 99.999% and 0.001%. After several
> >years,
> > > > >it's
> > > > > > >time that most comments reflect concrete additions or changes to
>a
> > > > > > >particular document, and not high-level discussion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Adam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >At 10:33 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
> > > > > > > >Adam,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I beleive we have covered this ground before.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >It is much easier to review something as large as SUMO if there
> >is
> > >a
> > > > > > >general
> > > > > > > >principle to guide you through it. So, for example, Nicola made
> >the
> > > > > >similar
> > > > > > > >point about understanding the choices that motivate an ontology
> >in
> > > >his
> > > > > >last
> > > > > > > >email.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >And, for a SUMO example, Ian has in a recent email effectively
> >said
> > > > >that
> > > > > > > >SUMO is eternalist rather than presentist - making no
>distinction
> > > > >between
> > > > > > > >the tenses. This is a useful and helpful architectural
>principle
> >to
> > > > > >know -
> > > > > > > >and helps us to understand SUMO better. It illuminates a raft
>of
> > > > >axioms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >If there is a similar principle relating to 3D and 4D - this
> >would
> > > >also
> > > > > >be
> > > > > > > >helpful. It is also not an uncommon principle to consider in
> > > > >ontologies -
> > > > > > > >e.g. Nicola's DOLCE is explicitly 3D and Matthew's EPSITLE is
> > > > >explicitly
> > > > > > >4D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The problem, for me at least, is that trying to get to these
> > > >principles
> > > > > >in
> > > > > > > >SUMO is like pulling teeth. And without the context they
>provide
> >it
> > > >is
> > > > > >very
> > > > > > > >difficult to "get a mutual understanding, much less agreement".
> > > >Getting
> > > > > > > >"down to details and comment[ing] on particular terms and
>axioms"
> > >is
> > > > >not
> > > > > >an
> > > > > > > >easy route to understanding if the underlying principles are
>not
> > > >clear.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >This is not to decry the value of the axioms etc., looking at
> >them
> > >is
> > > >a
> > > > > > > >natural next step once one has some grasp of the context.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >In this regard, ontologies are no different from any other
>large
> > > >system
> > > > > >of
> > > > > > > >knowledge.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Regards,
> > > > > > > >Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >From: adampease@earthlink.net [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > > > > > > >Sent: 02 July 2003 20:19
> > > > > > > >To: Chris Partridge
> > > > > > > >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; Patrick Cassidy
> > > > > > > >Subject: 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&n
> am> e=> So> ci> al> Ro> le>&>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
> > > > > > > > > >=============================================