SUO: Lifecycle Integration Schema -- Matthew West
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Lifecycle Integration Schema -- Matthew West
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 1
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew,
I will make this thread independent of my other questions,
starting at the top and trying to think about how I would
formalize the LIS ontology or data model in logical terms,
asking for clarification as I go. I always try to formalize
things in layers -- if there is a layer that I can formalize
in propositional calculus (pure boolean functions and so on),
then I will do as much as I can of that layer first; if there
is a layer that I can handle in ordinary naive set theory, then
I will do that first, putting off questions about the exact axioms
until they come up, not to mention nonwellfounded set theory, which
nobody should think is going to make life one bit easier for them.
| thing
|
| A <thing> is anything that is or may be thought about or perceived,
| including material and non-material objects, ideas, and actions.
|
| Every <thing> is either
| a <possible_individual>,
| or an <abstract_object>.
|
| NOTE 1. Every <thing> is identifiable within a system.
| System identifiers created by other systems and received
| as part of a data exchange may be stored for future reference
| as an identification, referring to the originating organisation
| or system.
|
| NOTE 2. Every example provided for other entity data types
| declared in this schema is also an example of <thing>.
|
| http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema/lexical/thing.html
Notes & Queries.
| A <thing> is anything that is or may be thought about or perceived,
| including material and non-material objects, ideas, and actions.
A statement that begins "An X is any X that ..." is problematic.
I will pass it by for now, and treat it as a comment that tells me
something about how you plan to use the word "thing", in some actual
or potential relation to the things that you call "perceptions" and
"thoughts", and applicable inclusively to all of the things that you
call "actions", "ideas", "material objects", and "non-material objects".
| Every <thing> is either
| a <possible_individual>,
| or an <abstract_object>.
This is an informative statement. It specifies a mutual constraint
on the applications of the three terms, "thing", "abstract_object",
and "possible_individual". Moreover, it's a constraint that can be
captured in zeroth order terms (boolean algebra, monadic predicates,
propositional calculus, sentential logic, etc,) and expressed very
succinctly in my favorite language for same, so I will capture it
immediately in the following form:
( thing ,( abstract_object ),( possible_individual ))
Roughly speaking, taken as an assertion, this says that every thing
is either an abstract_object or a possible_individual, but not both.
| NOTE 1. Every <thing> is identifiable within a system.
| System identifiers created by other systems and received
| as part of a data exchange may be stored for future reference
| as an identification, referring to the originating organisation
| or system.
You are saying that you are really only thinking about things
that have identifiers in given system, or names in a certain
context of discussion. This is very significant and needs to
be elevated to the level of an explicit principle, instead of
being left implicit in a note that is likely to be neglected,
in other words, relegated to a hidden axiom or constraint
whose consequences are not critically reflected on.
| NOTE 2. Every example provided for other entity data types
| declared in this schema is also an example of <thing>.
Okay for now, as long as it's just a comment.
There are some generic issues already arising here,
that come up in every discussion of this type, but
I'll need to think about some new ways to say them.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o