Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology

Dear Ansgar,
The issues you are studying are of high priority. Without an adequate 
modeling of time, space, events, causality, and correlations to have 
semantic information about the world as well as to develop real semantic web 
applications is hardly possible. What makes me think your Event-Model-F may 
go is the ontological base which you chosen as the fundamental assumptions. 
Real ontology is all about fundamental things: entity classes, essential 
properties and relationship classes, it is not about individuals, instances, 
specific properties and concrete links in concrete situations.
Regards.
Azamat
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ansgar Scherp" <scherp@uni-koblenz.de>
To: "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>; "[ontolog-forum]" 
<ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology


> Dear Azamat
>
>
> Thank you for pointing out to that website. However, it is not my 
> intention to discuss which one of the foundational ontologies is the 
> "best" one.
I hope so.
>I looked into the white paper you provide on your web page, it contains 
>some interesting references. However, it does not really help me to see the 
>"real place of dolce in the system of upper ontologies" as the paper does 
>not compare the upper ontologies.
AA: Indeed. A detailed comparison of upper ontologies one can find in 
http://books.google.com/books?id=mmVjIylBWlEC&pg=PT156&dq=reality+and+universal+ontology#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Our
> choice of DOLCE+DnS Ultralight was based on reading other related work and 
> our own experience.
>
> I was also wondering, if for the standard (upper) ontology you are 
> proposing a modeling in OWL is available? I didn't find any on the web 
> page.
>
> But coming back to your statement that there is a "poor ontological study" 
> of events.
AA: Poor in ontological value. I mentioned to Dan a vast listing of 
references, only in the Google.books, 
http://books.google.com/books?q=Events. One can find studies on many aspects 
and features of events, mathematical, logical, epistemological, linguistic, 
physical, social, etc. but really ontological analyses are very few, mostly 
confusing events as "spatiotemporal regions", "instantiations of 
properties", etc.
 I would argue for the contrary: the concepts of event
> and object have a long history in philosophy and are well studied there.
AA: It is. But we talk here about ontology, moreover, a formal ontology of 
events, moreover, an integrated formal ontology of events .
> Based on this work and using DOLCE+DnS Ultralite as basis layer, we define 
> in the Event-Model-F different ontology design patterns to express, e.g., 
> causal relationships between events and interpretations of events. Here, 
> the causality pattern defines a cause and an effect and is saying that 
> causes and effects are events and only events.
Because of the hapless choice of the base, your restricted yourself to a 
singular asymmetric causality, the so-called token-token causation. The 
ontological relation of causality is semantically richer, covering all 
fundamental laws, allowing reverse backward causality and causal circles. In 
fact, causes and effects are classes (kinds) of changes, sometimes called 
generic events, forming generic causality, marked by reflexivity, symmetry, 
and transitivity. What you are studying: a causality instantiated in a 
certain situation, particular causality, temporally and spatially 
restricted.
In
> addition, such a causal relationship holds under some justification and 
> there is always such a justification. As there might be different 
> interpretations of an event, the interpretation pattern allows to assemble 
> different views onto that event.
>
> Best
>
> Ansgar
>
>

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 19:57:37 UTC