Re: [bfo-discuss] Re: [IAO] BFO and information and numbers
Barry Smith
>At 11:16 AM 12/11/2009, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>For example, a calculation process has an output of a number.
Normally we would say that an output is something new. Numbers are
never new, because they are outside time and space.
Normally we would say that an output is an instance, rather than a
type/universal; but the distinction between types and instances,
which is central to the entire BFO approach, does not apply to numbers
Rather, the output of a calculation process is some sort of
information artifact which involves the representation of a number.
This still leaves open the issue of which ontology shall be used to
provide a controlled vocabulary for describing numbers, but the fact
that we use information artifacts to represent numbers is no more an
argument that IAO is the appropriate ontology for this, then is the
fact that we use information artifacts to describe beef an argument
that IAO should include cow-related terms.
BS
>>Numbers are one of the simplest forms of information, so if we can't do
>>numbers, then information in general is a problem.
>>
>>The two options here are straight-forward; either we have numbers
>>because they are useful or, we don't have them because they introduce
>>more confusion than their utility. It's a cost-benefit issue.
>>
>>Phil
>>
>>
>>Janna Hastings <janna.h...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > I'm not sure I understand. Why would you like 'number' to be included in
>> > BFO? Is 'number' a class in an ontology you wish to align with BFO? Or do
>> > you mean that you wish to include properties such as mass which
>> have numeric
>> > values?
>> >
>> > Thanks, Janna
>> >
>> >
>>
>>--
>>
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups "BFO Discuss" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to bfo-d...@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>bfo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/bfo-discuss?hl=en.
Phillip Lord
>>>For example, a calculation process has an output of a number.
>
> Normally we would say that an output is something new. Numbers are
> never new, because they are outside time and space.
> Normally we would say that an output is an instance, rather than a
> type/universal; but the distinction between types and instances,
> which is central to the entire BFO approach, does not apply to numbers
the BFO approach in inappropriate in many circumstances, including this
one.
> Rather, the output of a calculation process is some sort of
> information artifact which involves the representation of a number.
manuscripts.
> This still leaves open the issue of which ontology shall be used to
> provide a controlled vocabulary for describing numbers, but the fact
> that we use information artifacts to represent numbers is no more an
> argument that IAO is the appropriate ontology for this, then is the
> fact that we use information artifacts to describe beef an argument
> that IAO should include cow-related terms. BS
reasonable. Perhaps numbers should not be in IAO. If numbers do not fit
within the model of BFO, then this is fine; BFO is an ontology which is
designed for the life sciences, except where it deals with numbers. It's
just a question of being clear about scope.
Phil
Alan Ruttenberg
Perhaps not, but the question "where do cow's fit into BFO" is a
reasonable. Perhaps numbers should not be in IAO. If numbers do not fit
within the model of BFO, then this is fine; BFO is an ontology which is
designed for the life sciences, except where it deals with numbers. It's
just a question of being clear about scope.
Phillip Lord
of their use. Things that I would like to see in an ontology of
information are things like conclusion, novel, equation.
So, when you make a term like "conclusion textual entity", I think that
this is missing something; a conclusion.
Barry tells me that the idea is to represent portions of information.
Okay, but I don't think that this means that we shouldn't represent
information also.
Phil
Alan Ruttenberg
I think that numbers are a small issue, and I've already given examplesAlan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Phillip Lord
> <philli...@newcastle.ac.uk>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps not, but the question "where do cow's fit into BFO" is a
>> reasonable. Perhaps numbers should not be in IAO. If numbers do not fit
>> within the model of BFO, then this is fine; BFO is an ontology which is
>> designed for the life sciences, except where it deals with numbers. It's
>> just a question of being clear about scope.
>>
>>
> So that we can be more specific in this conversation, could you give me some
> examples of the sort of entities and relations that you would put in an
> ontology of numbers?
of their use. Things that I would like to see in an ontology of
information are things like conclusion, novel, equation.
So, when you make a term like "conclusion textual entity", I think that
this is missing something; a conclusion.
Barry tells me that the idea is to represent portions of information.
Okay, but I don't think that this means that we shouldn't represent
information also.
Robert Hoehndorf
Hi,
>> So that we can be more specific in this conversation, could you
> give me some > examples of the sort of entities and
> relations that you would put in an > ontology of numbers?
> I think that numbers are a small issue, and I've already
> given examples of their use. Things that I would like to see in
> an ontology of information are things like conclusion, novel,
> equation. So, when you make a term like "conclusion textual
> entity", I think that this is missing something; a conclusion.
> Please given me a definition and some example instances.
I do not pretend to speak for Phil, but /that/ there is something
missing is pretty obvious. When you look at the definition of
"numeral" in IAO, you will find in the (text) definition that a numeral
denotes a number; an integer numeral denotes an integer.
For this definition to make sense, to have any meaning besides the
trivial, we need to say what "number" and "integer" are. And because
we may not all agree on that, and because we want to facilitate
interoperability, we can provide an ontology of numbers, so that we
can directly refer to one particular meaning of "number". There is
even one axiom implied in the IAO about the ontolgoy of numbers:
integer is-a number (as extracted from the text-definition for the
corresponding numeral classes).
Similary for "conclusion": the definition of the "conclusion textual
entity" class in IAO lacks one thing - the conclusion. The class
definition is pretty much empty unless you can say what "conclusion"
is supposed to be (and I admit, that the textual definition is tagged
as needing revision, but nevertheless, the problem persists). A
"conclusion textual entity" is certainly more than just a string
(type), it is a string about a "conclusion", and the latter part is
not in IAO, maybe should not be in IAO, but should go somewhere. But
as long as it is missing, you/we cannot hope to provide a definition
for "conclusion textual entity", because you/we will always find
people disagreeing over what "conclusion" is supposed to be (is it a
string? a proposition? a role of a string within a text?)
Rob.
Phillip Lord
>> I think that numbers are a small issue, and I've already given examples
>> of their use. Things that I would like to see in an ontology of
>> information are things like conclusion, novel, equation.
>>
>> So, when you make a term like "conclusion textual entity", I think that
>> this is missing something; a conclusion.
>>
>
> Please given me a definition and some example instances.
Alan
Example -- I conclude that we need conclusions.
A definition is harder, obviously. Having a definition is not, however,
a pre-requisite for having a requirement.
>> Barry tells me that the idea is to represent portions of information.
>> Okay, but I don't think that this means that we shouldn't represent
>> information also.
>>
>
> The distinction between information and portion of information is that the
> former is a mass noun and the latter is a specific thing.
>
> Is that what you are suggesting is missing? That's not the distinction
> between conclusion textual entity and conclusion.
No, the distinction you are making is between the conclusion and the
paper based representation of it.
>
> Definitions and examples certainly appreciated...
I have given examples. A definition -- well something like
"A conclusion is the result of reasoning about a problem".
For information content,
"Information content is an entity which has a specific interpretation to
give a specific meaning".
If this form of change were used through IAO, it would simply the
ontology, make it easier to read. It would also mean that generically
dependent continuant could be removed from BFO.
It would also clarify the distinction between conclusion and conclusion
textual entity. At the moment, for example, the latter is a set of
glyphs. I find it very hard to distinguish with this definition the
process of authoring and the process of printing.
I think I will leave this here, as Christmas is almost upon me. Have a
good one!
Phil
Albert Goldfain
"quantitative qualities" or whatever):
If (per Barry) numbers are outside time and space, and assuming
nothing outside time and space can have causal impact on entities
within time and space, then consider the following cases:
(1) Internet transactions are secured using a cryptographic algorithm
(usually AES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard).
In order for such algorithms to work properly, an encryption key must
be generated by both communicating parties. I believe all public key
agreement algorithms rely on the use of a very large prime number as a
modulus. Not just any large prime number will do, however, to ensure
a certain (formally specifiable) level of security, the prime number
must be a safe prime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_prime ) or a
strong prime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_prime ). Using a
safe prime ensures that the complexity of recovering secret keys
generated when the safe prime is a modulus is much greater than when a
unsafe prime is used.
The ontological puzzle is this: It seems that every secure transaction
(bfo:process) is what it is partly because of the use of a safe
prime...but how can this be if numbers are outside time and space?
(2) Being divisible by 5 is a property of numbers. Being (evenly)
share-able by 5 people is a property (bfo:disposition) of entities
existing in space and time. But when 20 particular coins are shared
evenly by 5 particular people what *causes* the result to be that each
person has 4 coins...is it (a) the share-ability of the 20 coins or
(b) the divisibility by 5 of the number 20? If (b) then we have the
the same problem as case (1) above...how can a property of something
existing outside spacetime impact entities within spacetime. If (a),
then we are stretching the notion of disposition to include
externally grounded, b/c there is nothing in the physical makeup of
the collection of 20 coins that ensures its share-ability.
Sorry this doesn't follow the thread exactly...but these cases interest me.
-Albert
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Pat Hayes <pha...@ihmc.us> wrote:
> If you had asked me that question, I would answer: The natural numbers (a
> class, with denotations of decimal numerals as its members); the usual
> arithmetic operations on them (addition, multiplication) as functions, or
> relations if you prefer. Then in a slight extension ontology, the assertion
> that these operations have inverses (subtraction, division) and the
> concomitant class of all such (ie the rational numbers) together with a
> density assertion (between any two there is another). A few simple (and
> obvious) axioms, basically Peano arithmetic. And that will likely do for all
> practical purposes. Of course, this has nonstandard models, but who cares?
> We aren't trying to do FOM here.
> Pat
> PS. One thing this would not do, but which is very useful if one can do it,
> is to be able to infer that every natural number is the denotation of some
> numeral. That can be stated in CLIF enriched with a small but powerful
> extension which allows quantification over its own names considered as
> character strings. But this might be going too far for logical
> traditionalists, I concede.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Alan
>
> --
> informatio...@googlegroups.com
> To change settings, visit
> http://groups.google.com/group/information-ontology
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> informatio...@googlegroups.com
> To change settings, visit
> http://groups.google.com/group/information-ontology
>