Re: Semantic web architectural requirement [was Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> I have to call you on this one, Alan ...

:)

>
> On Jun 22, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not advocating that anything be considered truth.  Truth is
>>> irrelevant here.  This is about system design -- not philosophy.
>>
>> We differ, probably irreparably, here. I am a system builder and have
>> been one for a long time. Certainly in my case truth matters.
>
>
> And so do you really mean to claim that the rigid distinction between continuants and occurrents, built into OBO, is **true** ?
>
> Some day you must explain to me, over a beer, which part of current physics accounts for how there can be two different ways to be embedded in time.

Well, I hesitate to respond only because the prospect of sitting down
and having a beer with you is so appealing. But: I don't know that I
would say that there are two ways to be embedded in time. I would say
that there are different perspectives, equally true, and that they are
related to each other. I mean its not like we have to say that either
a wave has a frequency or a wavelength otherwise we are stating
falsehood. Moreover the continuant occurrent distinction seems to be
embedded even in fundamental physics where we acknowledge a
wave-particle duality. The particle is something for which it makes
sense to say that there is some thing that persists as time
identically as time passes. The wave is different and other than for
limited sets of boundary conditions, seems to be something not
amenable to the same kinds of description.

But you will be (perhaps)  happy to know that I engage in debate and
thought trying to probe and understand the distinction. And in other
cases in BFO, recently on the subject of Spatial Regions, I have
challenged the "truth" of the existence of these, at least as
conceived in that ontology. (as far as I know there is no evidence for
the existence of spatial regions as conceived in BFO).

So suffice to say that the truth *does* concern me, even at the upper
level. I suspect it concerns you to, based on the nature of the
question.

In David's case, we aren't anywhere near items about which there is
controversy. David wants us to believe that the writers of foaf,
having omitted a disjointness axiom between documents and people, have
deliberately sanctioned that they can be equated, solely based on that
omission, and immune from analysis of any text or discussion that has
been written on the matter.

-Alan



>
> Pat
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 07:25:14 UTC