Re: [WN] Endurant Objects?

Aldo, John

I am coming in late on this, but I am a bit surprised.

I thought Perdurant/Occurrent and Endurant/Continuant were of sortals  
rather than qualities, where the problems are clearly different.    
This seems an easy distinction to make.  In my biomedical world very  
few qaualities of anything are truly 'endurant' - i.e. unchangeable.

Likewise, I've always thought that the event/process distinction was  
one of granularity/perspective.  If our temporal mesh is fine enough  
all events above the subatomic can be redefined as a series of  
processes.  That's certainly the view of standard texts on the topic  
such as Davies.

Alan




On 1 Nov 2005, at 22:49, Aldo Gangemi wrote:

>
> Hi John,
>
> At 12:11 -0800 31-10-2005, John McClure wrote:
>
>> Hi Aldo,
>>
>>> Concerning endurant and perdurant, they are usually (e.g in DOLCE,
>>> http://dolce-semanticweb.org) assumed with the approximate  
>>> meaning of
>>> "object" (endurant) and "process" or "event" (perdurant).
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, my understanding is that endurant and perdurant are  
>> descriptors applicable
>> to qualities and quantities, that is, to *attributes of*  
>> resources. A resource
>> has endurant and/or perdurant attributes. For example, a person's  
>> height is a
>> perdurant quantity; a person's eye color is an endurant quality.
>>
>
> Strictly speaking, these examples depend on context:  height  
> changes significantly for only part of a person lifecycle, while  
> even eye color can change in later phases, let alone in newborns.  
> But this is just for general talking.
>
>
>> Apart from that, events-as-process track to my view also of  
>> perdurants. However,
>> there is a huge difference between perdurant events and endurant  
>> events. (Note:
>> I consider an event to be an attribute of the thing to which it  
>> occurs, as it
>> relates to the 'state' of the resource.)
>>
>
> This use of state and event is a bit peculiar. In system theory  
> (but also in engineering, Petri Nets, etc.), it's often assumed  
> that a process is constituted of states whose boundaries are events  
> that occur (transitions).
> In so-called 4-dimensionalist ontologies, events are attributes in  
> the sense they are temporal parts of an entity.
> BTW, I still miss what it means for events to "endure" or to  
> "perdure" ... (after looking at your site) ... ok, I think you  
> catch a know difference related to "aspects" in event structure, by  
> which we can consider an event as a whole (your "endurant event"),  
> or as a composition of parts (your "perdurant event"). But aspects  
> are not inherent in the processes you're trying to describe, they  
> come from the perspective of the user. E.g., if I went to an  
> auction and got a lamp, I can see the auction as a single, non- 
> analyzed whole that provided me a lamp, or as a long series of  
> events that allowed me to buy a lamp. Therefore, if I'm just  
> interested in the fact that I've got a lamp, that distinction is  
> totally irrelevant, while if I'm interested in legal consequences,  
> I should assume the second perspective.
>
>
>> A marriage ceremony is a process; a
>> recital of a marriage vow is a one-shot action consisting of no  
>> process
>> whatsoever. Maybe what needs to be done is to further define what  
>> a 'process'
>> is, from the DOLCE view?
>>
>
> You seem to assume that an action is atomic, while processes have  
> parts. So far so good. I'm only trying to catch the intended  
> meaning of your distinctions.
>
>
>> My own view is that a process is a series of actions
>> and subprocesses. An action (which normally occurs in the context  
>> of a process)
>> has no 'sub-action' and of course no subprocess component.
>>
>
> Consequently to what you said, indeed.
>
>
>> So, I am concerned about the presumption of a parallel between  
>> 'endurant' and
>> 'object' -- I think it's somewhat misleading if not wrong.
>>
>
> Why concerned? I was trying to compare your use of terms to another  
> one.
> There is nothing "wrong" in using terms in a controlled way, if  
> appropriate axioms or explanations prevent misunderstanding. For  
> example, DOLCE has hundreds of axioms and a lot of documentation  
> that attempt at clarifying the intended meaning of terms in its  
> logical vocabulary.
> Of course, if you try to convince anyone to use "cat" in order to  
> mean "dog", you may have hard time in talking to people, but this  
> is another story.
>
>
>> As for the larger
>> picture, sure, I agree that hooking a controlled, commercialized  
>> subset of WN
>> back to a transformed WN-ontology can be a good idea, although I'm  
>> not sure
>> about doing so until the subset is stable.
>>
>> BTW, for a view of (the heart of) the Legal XHTML model -- where  
>> events are
>> prime (by your actions are ye known!) -- please see
>> http://www.hypergrove.com/OWL/ and navigate to 1) Resource Model  
>> and 2) Event
>> Model
>>
>
> Interesting. Specially your design pattern for states and  
> qualities. Your use of rdf typing to relate conceptual and natural  
> language syntactic information is creative, while I don't see the  
> point in using metaclasses for end/perd events.
> For other approaches and patterns to represent legal reality see  
> also the recent "Law and the Semantic Web", R. Benjamins et al.,  
> Springer.
> Other comments when loading the owl file into some editor (the  
> Event file is still loading on Protege after 30 minutes).
>
>
>>  Our model allows "persons, places, and things" defined by other  
>> ontologies
>> to be 'pluggable' into the LegalXHTML ontology. For instance, a  
>> "Person" in
>> another model could subclass LegalXHTML's "ContactableThing" in  
>> order to pick up
>> Contact-related attributes.
>>
>
> As it is the case for any ontology with some generality ;)
>
>
>> LegalXHTML aims to package its attributes, as much
>> as possible, as perdurant and endurant events. The model published  
>> (today) is a
>> first big step towards that goal.
>>
>>
>
> More after loading
> Cheers
> Aldo
> -- 
>
>
>
> Aldo Gangemi
> Research Scientist
> Laboratory for Applied Ontology
> Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
> National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
> Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
> Tel: +390644161535
> Fax: +390644161513
> aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it
> http://www.istc.cnr.it/createhtml.php?nbr=71
>
>

-----------------------
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
www.clinical-esciences.org
www.co-ode.org

Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 08:43:46 UTC