ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] 3D+1 (was presentism...was blah blah blah)

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:55:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <50034.69.143.211.222.1296892509.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, February 4, 2011 12:25, Wacek Kusnierczyk said:
> On 2/4/11 11:10 AM, Yu Lin wrote:
>>> What I said was that I don't know what the timestamp you mention would
>>> be:
>> Sorry,
>> An instance in BFO has a timestamp.
>> For example:
>> In BFO, a Patient has a Quality of Elevated Temperature. (Capital
>> letter in the first letter means the Class) [in this statement, all in
>> class level, so there is no timestamp]
>> for instantiate :
>> 1. Mary (instance of Patient) had a temperature measured as 100F at
>> 16:43:00 2001年01月11日
>> 2. Mary (same instance in 1) had a temperature measured as 90F at
>> 12:00:00 2001年01月12日  (01) 
>> I hope I make it clear for you.  (02)
> Not really. If *every* instance has a timestamp,  (03)
The example suggests that what was meant was every statement instance --
or possibly every temporal statement instance. Yu Lin did not claim
that *every* instance has a time stamp. If *every* instance of *every*
class had a time stamp, your statement below would be included. However,
that does not appear what Yu Lin meant.  (04)
> I'd expect something like  (05)
> (Mary at t) has (a temperature 100f at t)  (06)
This would be a 4D statement. The provided statement was a 3D statement.  (07)
> because that temperature seems to be, in this framework, an *instance*
> of the class Quality of Elevated Temperature.  (08) 
That class is not a temporal class and so should not have a timestamp.  (09)
>> PS: I just know a little bit about logic. I have searched "IKL logic".
>> There is a slide of Pat on internet.
>> http://www.slideshare.net/PatHayes/ikl-presentation-for-ontolog (3
>> years ago)
>>
>> I hope our communication can talk more on ontology as someone
>> mentioned in another mail.
>
> We can probably quite successfully *talk* about ontology without any
> knowledge of logic, but as you set off to *formalize* your ontology --
> and this seems to be your goal -- not knowing logic is rather an
> obstacle. (That's why I'm not doing ontology, for that matter.)
>  (010) 
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org  (011)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================  (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (013)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date: Re: [ontolog-forum] Presentism (was Re: Ontology of Rough Sets) , doug foxvog
Next by Date: Re: [ontolog-forum] Presentism etc , doug foxvog
Previous by Thread: Re: [ontolog-forum] 3D+1 (was presentism...was blah blah blah) , Yu Lin
Next by Thread: Re: [ontolog-forum] 3D+1 (was presentism...was blah blah blah) , Wacek Kusnierczyk
Indexes: [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /