SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema -- Matthew West
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 34
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew,
Back to the Big Top ...
I would like to spend some time focusing on this initial distinction
among <things> as being <possible_individuals> or <abstract_objects>,
where you refer to the differential feature of existing in spacetime
or not, respectively.
| 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
| A <possible_individual> is a <thing> that exists in space and time.
|
| http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema/lexical/possible_individual.html
| An <abstract_object> is a <thing> that does not exist in space-time.
|
| http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema/lexical/abstract_object.html
Many ontologies begin with a distinction that is at least
superficially similar to this one, and many of them also
mention the same specific difference, that of existing
in space-and/or-time versus the apparent alternative.
In many respects, then, my questions are meant for
all ontologies that build on this notion, and not
just yours alone.
In this connection, I would like to call your attention to some of the
things that C.S. Peirce said about abstractions -- and if anybody ever
knew abstraction, this was the guy -- in this case using the old term
of art "hypostatic abstraction" to mean what we would normally call
an "abstract object", for example, egos, numbers, quarks, unicorns.
01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10964.html -- Cain and Abel
02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10965.html -- Dormative Virtue
03. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10966.html -- Honey is Sweet
04. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg10967.html -- Metaphormasis
I made the mistake of starting with the most complex example,
so skip over that one for now and let's get back to it later.
The second example is Peirce's diagnosis of a notorious case,
well worth the study as a precept for his entire doctrine of
abstract entities. The third example makes for the clearest
and simplest entry point, and I have illustretad the process
whereby an abstract substantive gets precipitated out of the
grammatical matrix of a concrete-adjective-bearing predicate.
I think that it will repay us in the long-run, when it comes
to understanding the relation between these two sides of the
alleged knowledge ledger, to catch the act of abstraction in
the act, as it were.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o