Hans,

Your first paragraph gets to the heart of the difference between what we as data modelers (cum ontologists) do and the world out there. A representation of a geographic area in a model (as in a map) is, by definition, idealized. It hopes to approximate a real piece of land out there, and measurement technologies have improved incredibly in recent years. But it is a model and not the real thing, as you pointed out.

One thing it can do is to provide a reference when you are out walking around trying to measure the actual stuff.

As for the School District example, i would not consider that a physical object, either. It is way more complicated than that. You have several things going on. You first have the Geographic Area (I would call it a Management Area, since the boundaries are set by the organization that is the School District Administration), which is described by its boundaries, possibly in terms of the other geographic areas, such as "precincts" that are included. There is an Organization that is the "School District Administration". And there are various Sites (also known as Addresses or Facilities), that are the schools, administrative offices, etc. Again, the concept of Address is still an abstraction, which is sort of like the idea of the "role" played by the location. I've always defined it as "a place with a purpose.

Dave Hay

Site/Address/Facility is the intersect of Geographic Location, Party, Physical Asset, and Activity. A particular School, for example, is located at an Address, housed in a physical building (Physical Asset), with children and teachers (Persons) carrying out educational Activities.

At 09:59 PM 9/26/2012, you wrote:
[Ed,

I guess I have a different perspective on this, based on my own experiences
in the construction industry and property that I own, as well as in military
information systems. In most cases, the boundary of a piece of property is
not well marked and is not in general physically "sensible". New technology
allows us to consult the relevant bureau of land records and find out the
geospatial reference points that constitute the boundary and make them
"visible" or let us virtually "sense" them via cyberspace, but they are not
being sensed by phenomenology evidenced by the land in question, the
occasional surveyor installed steel rod notwithstanding. My point is that
the identity and location of the piece land and the ownership of the land is
a reality that exists primarily in the institutions that human society has
created. If there is no fence or other physical marking, or it gets cratered
by some natural gas explosion, you still own the land, thanks to the bureau
of land records or equivalent local institution.

And it seems to me that treating a school district as a physical object is a
shortcut for associating the conceptual reality of a specific school
district with a physical extent in geographic space explicitly. I'm OK with
saying that a school district is a role that a particular physical piece of
land might assume, but it's certainly not the only role that the same piece
of land might assume, and there may be a multiplicity of school districts
that the same piece of land might be a part of. And like I said in my
earlier email, some school districts might not be geospatial in nature at
all, but use some other characterization attributes to determine
membership/jurisdiction. So we need to be careful about the implicit
association of a conceptual entity such as a precinct or school district
with a specific geospatial extent. Better to make that association explicit
and dynamic (i.e., check current authoritative source in cyberspace for
current boundaries before determining whether some piece of land is in the
district). And if I had to make a list of roles that might be applicable to
a given piece of land, membership in a school district or a precinct would
not be first on the list.

Of course, there may be good pragmatic reasons in certain contexts for
treating a school district or precinct as a physical object - but be careful
that you don't assume it is a permanent role or a primary role for that
physical object in other contexts, or that it is detectable by some agent
through means other than accessing the defining source in cyberspace.

Hans

-----Original Message-----
From: Barkmeyer, Edward J [ mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:00 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures



Andries van Renssen wrote:
> Hans,
> You state that things that have boundaries that cannot be detected by
> physical means, such as a 'school district', are conceptual realities
> and not physical realities.
> How do you know that a school district is a reality and not only an
> idea? I assume, because you can point to such a district in the real
physical world.
> Your argument is that the boundaries are not physical phenomena, but
> they are defined by human decision or agreement only.
> I understand that, and I agree that such boundaries are not measurable
> physical objects, but the area's within such 'boundaries by agreement'
> are nevertheless physical. (and it might even be possible to point to
> the boundaries in physical reality, because we know where the
> boundaries
are).
> Otherwise countries and yards would not be physical either, because
> the boundary of my yard is contractually defined and there is no
> physical boundary with my neighbor's yard; and a wall would be
> physical, but the left hand part of the wall would not be physical??
> That sounds as odd consequences.
>
> Therefore, I think that such things are physical objects (or roles of
> physical objects), which boundaries are defined by human decisions.
>
> Regards,
> Andries
>

It seems to me that this is an argument about the denotation of an undefined
term. The problem here is whether 'physical reality' means "something that
can be sensed with one of the five senses", which I took to be Hans'
definition, or not. If 'physical reality' has that definition, a 'school
district' is not a 'physical reality', whatever else it might be. Andries
has a different definition for 'physical reality', but he has not stated it.
So we cannot consider whether 'school district' satisfies it.

I am simply applying Kilov's Razor: "I will not agree with anything you say
unless you define your terms."

-Ed


--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems
Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have
not been reviewed by any Government authority."



>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
>> Verzonden: maandag 10 september 2012 20:46
>> Aan: '[ontolog-forum] '
>> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>>
>> On Thu, September 6, 2012 19:58, Hans Polzer wrote:
>>
>>> .... I've made note of
>>> this issue in past emails to this forum regarding the notion of
>>> "conceptual reality" being distinct from physical reality. A school
>>> district or
>>>
>> police
>>
>>> precinct doesn't exist in physical reality - there are no physical
>>> phenomenologies that can be used to "detect" or "sense" such an
>>>
>> object.
>>
>>> Sure, such a conceptual object can be mapped to some geospatial
>>>
>> extent -
>>
>>> although some "districts" might not be geospatial at all - but
>>>
>> evidence
>>
>>> for its existence is manifest only on paper (or cyberspace), and can
>>> be changed on a (institutional) whim. It is a creation of society,
>>> and no
>>>
>> physical
>>
>>> entity is directly affected or modified in any way by its creation.
>>>
>> Well stated.
>>
>> -- doug foxvog
>>
>>
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [ mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andries
>>>
>> van
>>
>>> Renssen
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:40 PM
>>> To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>>>
>>> Doug,
>>>
>>> Why is a school district not physical? In my view it is a physical
>>>
>> area on
>>
>>> earth with an (unspecified) height and depth.
>>> Physical object (and spatial objects) cannot be located in
>>>
>> themselves, but
>>
>>> they all can be in (several) locator as well as in located roles,
>>>
>> although
>>
>>> always in different (individual) relations.
>>>
>>> I am interested in your subtypes of the <being location in> kind of
>>> relation.
>>>
>>> The kind of relation <classification of an individual thing by a
>>> kind
>>>
>> of
>>
>>> thing> is semantically different from the kind of relation
>>> thing> <classification
>>> of a kind of thing by a meta kind of thing> as the role players are
>>> different.
>>> In the example, the relation <is classified as a> is a phrase for
>>> the first kind of relation.
>>> Furthermore, the statement is that all individual things 'shall be'
>>> classified, whereas that is not required for kinds of things. Kinds
>>>
>> of
>>
>>> things shall not necessarily be classified, but 'shall be'
>>>
>> generalized, by
>>
>>> being defined as subtypes of their supertype(s).
>>> Therefore, the term 'individual' is an important semantic
>>>
>> distinction.
>>
>>> If we eliminate it the semantic precision would be lost.
>>>
>>> In the other case of the use of 'individual' the sentence was taken
>>>
>> out of
>>
>>> contexts, because the original text talks about two basic semantic
>>> structures, one for facts about individual things and another for
>>>
>> facts
>>
>>> about kinds of things. So also here the term 'individual' marks an
>>> essential semantic distinction.
>>>
>>> I agree that a taxonomy is a hierarchical subtype-supertype network.
>>>
>>> I also agree that each individual thing can (in principle) be
>>>
>> classified
>>
>>> by
>>> more than one kind of thing.
>>>
>>> With kind regards,
>>> Till after my holidays,
>>> Andries
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>>> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>>>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
>>>> Verzonden: donderdag 6 september 2012 7:29
>>>> Aan: [ontolog-forum]
>>>> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, September 5, 2012 12:47, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What's not to like about this excerpt:
>>>>>
>>>>> "In its simplest form, this is a structure that is also supported
>>>>>
>> by
>>
>>>>> technologies, such as _RDF_ and _OWL_. However, a semantic model
>>>>> includes the following semantic extensions that support an
>>>>>
>> improved
>>
>>>>> computer interpretation of such sentences and an improved
>>>>>
>>>> computerized
>>>>
>>>>> verification of semantic correctness:
>>>>>
>>>> Fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Each kind of relation has a modeled definition. Those semantic
>>>>> definitions of the relation type includes the definition of the
>>>>>
>>>> required
>>>>
>>>>> kinds of roles and the allowed kinds of players of such roles.
>>>>>
>>>> Fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For
>>>>> example, the relation type <is located in> requires a physical
>>>>> object
>>>>>
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>> a 'locator' role and another physical object in a 'located' role.
>>>>>
>>>> There are many kinds of "is located in" relations which are useful
>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>> tease apart. A more useful, more generic, form would require a
>>>> spatial object in both the 'locator' and 'located' role. Non-
>>>>
>> physical
>>
>>>> spatial objects (such as school districts or police precincts)
>>>> could be in either the 'locator' or 'located' role with such a
predicate.
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest that the example refer to a "spatial object"
>>>> instead of a "physical object".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Each individual thing is classified by a kind of thing, because
>>>>> the meaning of a relation between individual things can only be
>>>>>
>>>> interpreted
>>>>
>>>>> correctly when each related individual thing is classified, as
>>>>>
>> well
>>
>>>> as
>>>>
>>>>> the roles they play and the relation they have.
>>>>>
>>>> I would strike the word "individual", since kinds of things (e.g.,
>>>> CanusLupus)
>>>> can also be classified by kinds of (meta) things (e.g.,
>>>> BiologicalSpecies).
>>>>
>>>> I would also clarify this by noting that each thing can be
>>>>
>> classified
>>
>>>> by one or more kinds of things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * The kinds of things are defined by at least a relation with
>>>>>
>> their
>>
>>>>> supertype kinds of things,
>>>>>
>>>> Fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> thus forming a taxonomy of concepts (a
>>>>>
>>>> The word "taxonomy" suggests a tree structure. This should be
>>>> clarified to make clear that a directed acyclic graph is a valid
>>>> specialization hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> specialization hierarchy, also called a subtype-supertype
>>>>>
>> hierarchy).
>>
>>>>> This is necessary for the interpretation of the meaning of the
>>>>> classifiers (city, tower, and 'is located in', as well as
>>>>>
>> 'locator'
>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> 'located').
>>>>>
>>>>> This results in a universal basic semantic data structure for the
>>>>> _expression_ of facts about individual things."
>>>>>
>>>> Again, i'd strike the word "individual".
>>>>
>>>> -- doug foxvog
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Source: http://www.gellish.net/topics/semantic-modelling.html .
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>>> Founder & CEO
>>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog:
>>>>> http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>>>> Google+ Profile:
>>>>>
>> https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>
>>>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
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



_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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  (01)

[More with this subject...]