[FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft

Chris Partridge

unread,

Jul 30, 2020, 5:00:20 PM7/30/20

to fdm ndt

Hi,

Please find attached the latest draft of the TLO Survey and the Framework Assessment.

This incorporates comments from a number of reviews, some of them not submitted via this list. Can I thank everyone who contributed?

There are a couple of areas where (rather than an amendment) more research work is needed - these have been marked in the text with comments - they will be updated soon.

Going forward, could people please review this latest draft.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

TLOs - Framework Assessment - transposed - 2020-07-30 - CPa.xlsx

Top Level Ontologies - Survey Paper - draft - 2020-07-30.docx

Steven Kraines

unread,

Jul 30, 2020, 10:58:13 PM7/30/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the updated draft - this looks really good and
definitely fills a major gap in the current literature!

I have made a few comments and editorial suggestions
(mainly according to the quote by Thomas Jefferson :) ).
The biggest issue for me (and it might just be me) is
the terminology - in particular what is meant by "object".
Perhaps it would be useful to include the terms "object",
"material object", "type", "property", "model",
"architecture", "framework", etc. in the glossary?

As always, please treat all comments and edits as
(possibly naive) suggestions of a person trying to
get his head around all of the technical talk in the paper. :)

Best,

Steven

On 2020/07/31 5:59, Chris Partridge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find attached the latest draft of the TLO Survey and the
> Framework Assessment.
>
> This incorporates comments from a number of reviews, some of them not
> submitted via this list. Can I thank everyone who contributed?
>
> There are a couple of areas where (rather than an amendment) more
> research work is needed - these have been marked in the text with
> comments - they will be updated soon.
>
> Going forward, could people please review this latest draft.
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
>
>

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |

> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>

> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>

>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

Top Level Ontologies - Survey Paper - draft - 2020-07-30kraines.docx

Chris Partridge

unread,

Jul 31, 2020, 4:10:33 AM7/31/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Steven,

Many thanks for getting back so quickly.

A good catch on 'object'. As noted in the text, I/we had standardised on 'object' instead of the possible alternatives 'entity' and 'thing'. What needs to be clearer is that object is intended to be the name of all objects/things/that exist - and given the topic of the paper, this is relativised to an implicit or explicit TLO. If we are using a foundational top ontology it may not be "Anything that we talk about, including sets, operators, functions, domains, etc.? " , in a natural language ontology, it probably would.

Also, it looks like you assume a strong nominalist position "Or do you mean “objects in the real world” (what I would call “individuals” as opposed to “classes/sets” and “relationships/tuples”)?". Are the sets and relationships concepts? (which presumably exist). What is a t issue here is that there are a real variety of positions - and for those who are looking to take a position, we need to make clear what the choices are, and for those with a position, we have a tool to help them make explicit their choices, if they have not done so already.

As a side note: there is a twist in the horizontal stratification choices, where firstly the TLO that object is relativised to is whichever one is under consideration and secondly, input to the choice has been 'object' so as to leave open when there have been prior stratifications. At the moment, I suspect that there is not a canonical order for the choices, in other words, different orders of application of the choices are equally valid - though some of the orders (as shown in the journey diagrams) seem to make more narrative sense.

I'll try to process this soon.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk

M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.

Steven Kraines

unread,

Jul 31, 2020, 7:55:02 AM7/31/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris,

Sounds great! Just to help me figure this out, can you
give me some examples of things that are not objects?

Best,

Steven

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |
> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>
>
>

> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >
> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> > 6100 58
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

David Leal

unread,

Jul 31, 2020, 9:03:51 AM7/31/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Chris and others,

The discussion of thing and object has prompted a question for the experts. The "Core Industrial Data Set of Terms" project, in which both Matthew and I are involved, is a terminology not an ontology, and seeks to be a) understandable by engineers and b) independent of choice TLO.

In the draft CIDST, the term "thing" is used in the definition of the prefixes:

particular - thing that exists in space and time, and
kind - things that have something in common.

We have used term object, in:

material object - thing that consists of matter,

which gives:

particular material object - thing that exists in space and time and that consists of matter;
kind of material object - things that have something in common and that consist of matter.

Is this the best we can do for a terminology?

Best regards,
David

-- 
CAESAR Systems Limited
mob: +44 77 0702 6926
registered address: 56 Micheldever Road, London, SE12 8LU, UK
company number: 02422371
VAT number: 548 0510 55

Chris Partridge

unread,

Jul 31, 2020, 9:30:10 AM7/31/20

to fdm ndt

Hi David,

Everyone has their own favourite term.

There is an obvious benefit in harmonising, but I think we should take note of usage in various communities - as well as other standards.

And we should have a convention here - hopefully one that aims at minimising semantic friction.

I like "material object - thing that consists of matter"

I'd argue against 'kind' as this has a lot of baggage in philosophy/ontology - natural kinds, etc. - and biology. I currently think that 'type' has the least baggage - unless one is a logician and distinguishes between types and sets.

I'd also argue against 'thing' as I think that in common parlance there is a tendency towards only including particulars (as in this definition "an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being. - "I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished" ") .Would a biologist refer to species as things? Or the various relationships between species?

'Entity' has some technical baggage that supports it - entities are, from the etymology, what exists. But there is also the entrenched entity-attribute division that argues against it - surely attributes exist.

My preference for 'object' in that it seems to have less baggage - except maybe for OO programmers :)

WRT "particular - thing that exists in space and time" generally this would be concrete particular as abstract particulars do not fit your definition. It is more traditional to use Aristotle's definition here of having no instances (if that is the agreed term :) )

I like 'particular' but it has baggage due to its association with universal. So, I'd vote for individual. Unfortunately, for first-order logicians, this means much the same as instance.

And so on.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk

M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Jul 31, 2020, 9:57:54 AM7/31/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Steven,

WRT "Sounds great! Just to help me figure this out, can you - give me some examples of things that are not objects? "

I'm not sure how hard core you want me to be.

One could deconstruct what you said - give me some examples of things that we talk about that are not objects? "

If we take things and objects to have roughly the same sense, then if something is a thing it is probably an object. So I hope you accept my clarification.

I think if we are at the pre-analytic stage then pretty much everything we talk about could possibly be an object - in the sense that we might adopt a TLO that claims it exists. If one adopts a natural language ontology, then there is a preference for it existing. We cannot marshall good arguments against it not being an object without venturing into TLO territory.

Here is one topic that might help with the question - impossible objects.

There is a lot of technical literature on whether and how impossible objects exist - for example, the square circle. For a historical example see this entry on Meinong https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/#Mei

However, most TLOs would tend to say that these don't exist - so talk of them does not refer to an object (or thing or entity)

Once one gets down to specific TLOs, these will claim certain types of objects don't exist.

So a materialist is likely to object to the existence of abstract, non-material, objects. Asking questions such as - how we could know them and how could they have any causal effect on anything.

Of course, an immaterialist would have their own arguments.

Many (most?) of the horizontal stratification choices are laying out claims about what exists.

Did I answer the question?

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

Steven Kraines

unread,

Jul 31, 2020, 10:09:34 PM7/31/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris,

On p.142 of your book
"Business Objects:
Re-Engineering for Re-Use"
you write:

"The weak pattern for classes sees a class as a collection,
but does not see that a class
is an object — only particular objects are objects.
In this scheme of things, the idea of
collecting together classes into a class cannot
arise because weak classes are not
objects and so cannot be collected together into a class."

Does this mean that collections are not objects?

Also, if I understand what you wrote below correctly,
according to a materialist, classes and tuples are not
objects (or so they would object!). Is that correct?

Steven

On 2020/07/31 22:57, Chris Partridge wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>

> WRT "Sounds great! Just to help me figure this out, can you - give me
> some examples of things that are not objects? "
>
> I'm not sure how hard core you want me to be.
>
> One could deconstruct what you said - give me some examples of things

> *that we talk about that *are not objects? "

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |
> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>
>
>

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |
> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB
> 905 6100 58
>
>
>

> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 14:03, David Leal
> <david...@caesarsystems.co.uk

> <mailto:david...@caesarsystems.co.uk>> wrote:
>
> Dear Chris and others,
>
> The discussion of thing and object has prompted a question for
> the experts. The "Core Industrial Data Set of Terms" project,
> in which both Matthew and I are involved, is a terminology not
> an ontology, and seeks to be a) understandable by engineers and
> b) independent of choice TLO.
>
> In the draft CIDST, the term "thing" is used in the definition
> of the prefixes:
>

> * particular - thing that exists in space and time, and
> * kind - things that have something in common.

>
> We have used term object, in:
>

> * material object - thing that consists of matter,
>
> which gives:
>
> * particular material object - thing that exists in space and

> time and that consists of matter;

> * kind of material object - things that have something in

>>> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>

>>> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>>> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>>>
>>> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
>>> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
>>> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
>>> 6100 58
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> > www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>

>>> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
>>> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>>> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>>> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
>>> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
>>> >
>>> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
>>> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
>>> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
>>> > 6100 58
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

>>> > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>
>>> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>>> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

>>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
>>> >
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com
>>> >

>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

>>> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>
>>> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>

>>> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.

>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com

>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> CAESAR Systems Limited
> mob: +44 77 0702 6926
> registered address: 56 Micheldever Road, London, SE12 8LU, UK
> company number: 02422371
> VAT number: 548 0510 55
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from

> it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 1, 2020, 4:59:00 AM8/1/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Steven,

I have a feeling I may not have really understood the motivation for your question. So having made my best guess, here is my response.

Couple of preliminaries.

Firstly, the various PDF drafts of my book that I share have (unfortunately) different page numbering, so the page number is not a good index. The passage you reference is Ch. 6 Section 2.2.1.

Secondly, for any casual reader, the term 'object' has a variety of senses. In the TLO survey I'm using it in a specialist sense of - what exists, which, if we take as a question has the answer "objects. One of the key issues in the TLO survey is that the meaning of the answer to this depends upon your top-level ontology - so for each TLO the term 'objects' will mean something slightly different - though play the same role of answering the question "what exists?". One purpose of the TLO is to make the differences clear. Also, to confuse things, the various TLOs will have their own chosen term for this role.

In my book, I used a narrative device of an emerging series of TLO (paradigms) - roughly based upon their historical emergence - to make the point that one could make different commitments and so commit to different things. I thought, in the spirit of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory ) that this would be a good way to build up to the final paradigm. And it is worth noting I used 'entity' for the most general term in the early paradigms and then switched to 'object' in the later paradigms to (hopefully) mark the change in sense.

Okay.

WRT "Does this mean that collections are not objects?"

There is a lot one could say.

In the paragraph before this I note that the position, the TLO I was describing was similar to "object-oriented programming" where there is what I called the "the weak pattern for classes".

I think you can see this kind of description happening often when looking at certain ways of describing the levels in UML and MOF. There are the real individuals in the world (M0) and then various models of these - and models of models. Sometimes the iconography of the models is linked to concepts (whether in our brain of a platonic heaven is not made clear - see e.g. https://www.academia.edu/25701511/). One can see the model iconography - and the related concepts - as individuals. In this scheme, looked at in a certain way the ontic landscape is flat - only individuals and their relations exist.

I suspect from some comments you made in the paper, this might be a congenial view for you.

However, one difficulty with all this exegesis is trying to get to the bottom of the ontological commitments that are being made. One needs a kind of rational reconstruction of the ontology. And I'm sure you could reconstruct UML/MOF in a number of ways.

In this weak classes pattern TLO neither classes nor collections exist - the icon or concept's instantiation relation collects the instances but (as far as I can see) doesn't commit to a collection object.

What the section you have taken the extract from is marking is a move along the emerging series paradigms (one, as it notes, made by Cantor) - the move where the classes are seen as objects in their own right. One step on from the position above.

Stepping away from the book, the debate of the ontological status of collections in general is wide and deep. One place to start would be with pluralities - see e.g. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plural-quant/.

WRT "Also, if I understand what you wrote below correctly, according to a materialist, classes and tuples are not objects (or so they would object!). Is that correct?"

> So a materialist is likely to object to the existence of abstract,

> non-material, objects. Asking questions such as - how we could know them
> and how could they have any causal effect on anything.

No. There are a number of senses of abstract. I attach an entry on abstraction that I like for its comprehensiveness.

The (standard) sense of abstract I was using is that of not being located in space-time and having no causal influence - as distinct from concrete. Classes and tuples are located in space-time - see David Lewis On the Plurality of Worlds - p. 81 onwards - 1. 7 Concreteness: "But a set of located things does seem to have a location, though perhaps a divided location: it is where its members are. Thus my unit set is right here, exactly where I am; the set of you and me is partly here where I am, partly yonder where you are; and so on."

There is another sense of abstraction, which is the mental (or logical) process of abstracting away from the features on particulars. The mental version of this was common in 17th and 18th century philosophy, but has been criticised more recently. There is a strand of discussion that adopts this sense that refers to classes and tuples as abstract. Unfortunately, I find that often they confuse (deliberately?) the two senses and want to claim that as sets are abstract in their abstract-away-from sense it follows that they are not located in space-time. Which is plainly wrong when you look at cases, but easy to miss if you don't. If you read the attached entry in detail, it will cure you of any tendency to confuse the senses.

Under this sense, classes and tuples are abstract but this causes no problems for the materialist.

However, there are positions where classes and tuples don't exist. For example, in the mid 20th century, there were (nominalistic) attempts to work without sets/classes. Quine and Goodman worked on this. Quine eventually publically threw the towel in - accepting sets.

Hopefully, among all this is an answer to your question :)

Anyway, some food for thought.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk

M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/06e5e94a-f97e-b389-167d-32178cb86002%40kraines.net.

Dictionary of Untranslatables - Abstraction.pdf

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 1, 2020, 9:38:38 AM8/1/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Chris and David,

Hi David,

Everyone has their own favourite term.

[MW] This is not about favourites, it is about coming up with terms that resonate with our target audience, and are least likely to confuse.

There is an obvious benefit in harmonising, but I think we should take note of usage in various communities - as well as other standards.

And we should have a convention here - hopefully one that aims at minimising semantic friction.

I like "material object - thing that consists of matter"

I'd argue against 'kind' as this has a lot of baggage in philosophy/ontology - natural kinds, etc. - and biology. I currently think that 'type' has the least baggage - unless one is a logician and distinguishes between types and sets.

[MW] Well fortunately philosophers are not in our target audience. Both class and type are seen in IT as carrying baggage of various sorts, and at least kind does not have that. However, the use in the SC4 work was in the sense of natural kind, the things that have nouns/noun phrases as names, and so does not have the formality we will probably need as a top level term, but is useful for those things that do have names. At a formal level, if we mean set, I think we should use that term. Although there are varieties of set, it is relatively easy to clarify that.

I'd also argue against 'thing' as I think that in common parlance there is a tendency towards only including particulars (as in this definition "an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being. - "I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished" ") .Would a biologist refer to species as things? Or the various relationships between species?

'Entity' has some technical baggage that supports it - entities are, from the etymology, what exists. But there is also the entrenched entity-attribute division that argues against it - surely attributes exist.

My preference for 'object' in that it seems to have less baggage - except maybe for OO programmers :)

[MW] Yes, and OO programmers are in our target audience. You can’t win with this one. I expect objects to be particulars, and not to be activities. The winner for me is entity. The only reason we did not use that in ISO 15926 (and HQDM) is that it is a reserved word in EXPRESS.

WRT "particular - thing that exists in space and time" generally this would be concrete particular as abstract particulars do not fit your definition. It is more traditional to use Aristotle's definition here of having no instances (if that is the agreed term :) )

I like 'particular' but it has baggage due to its association with universal. So, I'd vote for individual. Unfortunately, for first-order logicians, this means much the same as instance.

[MW] I like individual too, but then along came OWL and used it for what I would call instance (of a class). We are not going to be able to avoid OWL and its usage so we need to use something else. I have not seen a better option than “particular”, and if the only downside is some angst for philosophers, then we should not worry too much.

And so on.

[MW] Whichever way you look at it we will need to land on some terms, and it will not be a matter of which anyone likes, it will be a matter of trying to identify ones that will cause least confusion to our target audience. The exercise they are going through in SC4 is a non-arbitrary way to arrive at terms that seem to be achieving that for an engineering audience after considering various alternatives. (You should see some of the “favourites” that have been set aside).

Regards

Matthew West

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrcHYc1doEOSWZM5oBVinPNjJ1zd8cX5j%3DgP5P-3mEg3A%40mail.gmail.com.

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 1, 2020, 10:06:40 AM8/1/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Steve and Chris,

I agree with most of what Chris says here, However, there is one point where I feel obliged to put an alternative view.

[MW] …

WRT "Also, if I understand what you wrote below correctly, according to a materialist, classes and tuples are not objects (or so they would object!). Is that correct?"

> So a materialist is likely to object to the existence of abstract,

> non-material, objects. Asking questions such as - how we could know them
> and how could they have any causal effect on anything.

No. There are a number of senses of abstract. I attach an entry on abstraction that I like for its comprehensiveness.

The (standard) sense of abstract I was using is that of not being located in space-time and having no causal influence - as distinct from concrete. Classes and tuples are located in space-time - see David Lewis On the Plurality of Worlds - p. 81 onwards - 1. 7 Concreteness: "But a set of located things does seem to have a location, though perhaps a divided location: it is where its members are. Thus my unit set is right here, exactly where I am; the set of you and me is partly here where I am, partly yonder where you are; and so on."

[MW] I don’t doubt that David Lewis said that, and I generally like what David Lewis says, but you can generally find a philosopher that supports any point of view you care for, and I don’t know any that haven’t made the odd mistake (even Chris😊). I think the problem is that the main difference between a set and an aggregate is that an aggregate of material objects has mass, and a set doesn’t. It is a bit hard for a simple soul like me to see how something that has no mass (but has members with mass) is still itself located (what is there if there is no mass to be located?). It does not have mass through its members, so I see no special reason (or use) to it have location through its members.

I notice some philosophers get very exercised about abstract objects, and try to eliminate them, either it seems by trying to avoid them (as Goodman and Quine did) or by claiming that objects many might reasonably think of as abstract aren’t really after all. I’m not yet convinced this is not all game playing of some sort.

On the other hand, there is something called grounding, and you can reasonably claim that you sets are grounded if they have as members (or members of members etc) particulars of some sort. That is something I find more useful, since in my experience understanding how you are grounded is a considerable aid to analysis and can help you avoid mistakes.

Regards

Matthew West

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_jg5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com.

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 1, 2020, 8:50:43 PM8/1/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris and Matthew,

Thanks for all of the great insights! For me, it often
helps in understanding what something is to think about
what it is not, so I was trying to get some clear examples
of what is not an object, but I understand
now that it all depends on what you consider to "exist".
I have been influenced a bit by ISO15926-2, where
"abstract objects" (which are presumably objects) are
defined to be things (objects) that do not exist in space
and time. I thought that I had a pretty good handle on
that idea (that classes and relationships exist but
outside of space-time), but now I am not so sure.

Can we talk about things (objects) that exist but not
in space-time? If so, do we have to worry about where
it is that they exist?

As an aside on the term "abstract" - it has become a
central term for our work at ASAM on road traffic
scenario description. They have decided to call
scenarios that are described quantitatively (essentially
at the level of a programming language and in principle
directly interpretable by a simulator) "concrete
scenarios" and scenarios that are described qualitatively
(basically equals "in natural language") "abstract scenarios".
Is this notion of concrete=quantitative and
abstract=qualitative somehow related to the universals /
particulars distinction?

Also, you guessed correctly, Chris (and Matthew knows well,
probably to the point of aggravation :) ) - my line of
attack (for the last couple decades!) has been to assume
that OWL is the best available means for representing human
knowledge in a computer understandable form, and then
to say, okay how much human knowledge can we express in
OWL? In particular, the "TBox/ABox" differentiation is
a key point for me - if we commit to saying that
individuals cannot be classes and vice versa, how much
expressivity (and semantic inference) can we support?

Steven

PS I liked very much the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"
approach of your book, Chris, but as you might pick up from my
comments, I am concerned that the different terms make for
a rather confusing exposition. Perhaps a glossary for the
book might have been helpful... :)

PPS Matthew, would this be a reasonable way to address the
issues we are having of basic terminology? I like the
way that ISO704 laid it out - the term is secondary to the
definition, and it is maybe not too much to say that if
you have a good definition, the selection of the term to
represent it doesn't really matter... (of course it
matters because people will forget the definition, but we
can dream...)

On 2020/08/01 17:58, Chris Partridge wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>

> *WRT "Does this mean that collections are not objects?"*

> *WRT "Also, if I understand what you wrote below correctly, according to

> a materialist, classes and tuples are not objects (or so they would

> object!). Is that correct?"*

>> So a materialist is likely to object to the existence of abstract,
>> non-material, objects. Asking questions such as - how we could know them
>> and how could they have any causal effect on anything.
>
> No. There are a number of senses of abstract. I attach an entry on
> abstraction that I like for its comprehensiveness.
> The (standard) sense of abstract I was using is that of not being
> located in space-time and having no causal influence - as distinct from
> concrete. Classes and tuples are located in space-time - see David Lewis

> On the Plurality of Worlds - p. 81 onwards - 1. 7 Concreteness: "/But a

> set of located things does seem to have a location, though perhaps a
> divided location: it is where its members are. Thus my unit set is right
> here, exactly where I am; the set of you and me is partly here where I

> am, partly yonder where you are; and so on/."

>
> There is another sense of abstraction, which is the mental (or logical)
> process of abstracting away from the features on particulars. The mental
> version of this was common in 17th and 18th century philosophy, but has
> been criticised more recently. There is a strand of discussion that
> adopts this sense that refers to classes and tuples as abstract.
> Unfortunately, I find that often they confuse (deliberately?) the two
> senses and want to claim that as sets are abstract in their
> abstract-away-from sense it follows that they are not located in
> space-time. Which is plainly wrong when you look at cases, but easy to
> miss if you don't. If you read the attached entry in detail, it will
> cure you of any tendency to confuse the senses.
> Under this sense, classes and tuples are abstract but this causes no
> problems for the materialist.
>
> However, there are positions where classes and tuples don't exist. For
> example, in the mid 20th century, there were (nominalistic) attempts to
> work without sets/classes. Quine and Goodman worked on this. Quine
> eventually publically threw the towel in - accepting sets.
>
> Hopefully, among all this is an answer to your question :)
> Anyway, some food for thought.
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
>
>

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |
> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>
>
>

> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 03:09, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net

> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>

> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >
> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> > 6100 58
> >
> >
> >

> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 14:29, Chris Partridge
> > <partr...@borogroup.co.uk <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >
> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street,
> Henley on
> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB
> > 905 6100 58
> >
> >
> >

> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 14:03, David Leal
> > <david...@caesarsystems.co.uk
> <mailto:david...@caesarsystems.co.uk>

> > <mailto:david...@caesarsystems.co.uk

> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> >>> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >>> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>

> >>>
> >>> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West
> Street, Henley on
> >>> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> >>> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 |
> VAT No. GB 905
> >>> 6100 58
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 03:58, Steven Kraines
> <ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>
> >>> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>

> >>> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> >>> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>

> >>> >
> >>> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West
> Street, Henley on
> >>> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> >>> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No:
> 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> >>> > 6100 58
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > You received this message because you are
> subscribed to the Google
> >>> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> emails from it, send
> >>> > an email to
> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>
> >>> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> >>> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >>> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>.

> >>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >>> >
> >>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com
> >>> >
> >>>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed
> to the Google
> >>> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> emails from it,
> >>> send an email to
> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>
> >>> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.

> >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google
> >>> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it, send
> >>> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>

> >>> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com
> >>>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >
> > --
> > CAESAR Systems Limited
> > mob: +44 77 0702 6926
> > registered address: 56 Micheldever Road, London, SE12 8LU, UK
> > company number: 02422371
> > VAT number: 548 0510 55
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> > Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> > it, send an email to
> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/06e5e94a-f97e-b389-167d-32178cb86002%40kraines.net.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_jg5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_jg5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 2, 2020, 3:01:35 AM8/2/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Steve,

Hi Chris and Matthew,

Thanks for all of the great insights! For me, it often helps in understanding what something is to think about what it is not, so I was trying to get some clear examples of what is not an object, but I understand now that it all depends on what you consider to "exist".

[MW] It is actually the other way round: if it exists then it is an object. So perhaps we should consider what existence means in an ontology? Quite simply, in an ontology you can only talk about things once you have accepted the into your ontology as existing, and "the things your ontology permits you to talk about" is what it means to exist in practical terms. So if you want to talk about that famous detective, Sherlock Holmes, you first have to accept that he "exists" as something you can talk about.

You will notice that this is not quite the everyday idea of existence, and it causes huge confusion, because a more everyday sense of existing would be things you can kick. So we should perhaps talk about ontological existence when we are talking about what is allowed in our ontology.

You might of course think that not being able to talk about Sherlock Holmes is no great loss, but for us, plans come into the same category. They are about the future, and are rarely what actually turns out in practice, so are much the same as works of fiction and need to be kept separate from reality somehow. Plans, simulations, and other attempts to predict the future are very important in engineering.

Despite that, some ontologies really do eschew anything that does not actually exist (roughly the present and history). BFO is one such actualist ontology, and indeed you do see problems representing plans. They can talk about the information as an actual piece of paper or data file, but not about the things represented. This brings further problems because you then have to have a way of saying that the piece of paper or data file, whilst there is not something it represents, does have sense. The usual position is that the sense of information is what it represents.

I have been influenced a bit by ISO15926-2, where "abstract objects" (which are presumably objects) are defined to be things (objects) that do not exist in space and time. I thought that I had a pretty good handle on that idea (that classes and relationships exist but outside of space-time), but now I am not so sure.

[MW] I would still take that view, but that does not mean that they do not exist. We admit they exist because we want to talk about them. The sense of abstract used in ISO 15926 and HQDM is rather more limited. But note that ISO 15926 includes numbers as abstract objects, which it is rather harder to see as being located anywhere in any sense than the set of cars.

Can we talk about things (objects) that exist but not in space-time? If so, do we have to worry about where it is that they exist?

[MW] As above, if you want to talk about them, you have to find a way for them to exist.

As an aside on the term "abstract" - it has become a central term for our work at ASAM on road traffic scenario description. They have decided to call scenarios that are described quantitatively (essentially at the level of a programming language and in principle directly interpretable by a simulator) "concrete scenarios" and scenarios that are described qualitatively (basically equals "in natural language") "abstract scenarios".
Is this notion of concrete=quantitative and abstract=qualitative somehow related to the universals / particulars distinction?

[MW] It could be. If the abstract is dealing with the types of thing that are happening and the concrete a run through of a particular scenario, that would make sense. Remember words mean what the user intended when they used them, and are not constrained to use them as defined by some philosophers.

Also, you guessed correctly, Chris (and Matthew knows well, probably to the point of aggravation :) ) - my line of attack (for the last couple decades!) has been to assume that OWL is the best available means for representing human knowledge in a computer understandable form, and then to say, okay how much human knowledge can we express in OWL?

[MW] I would accept it is becoming the most ubiquitous.

In particular, the "TBox/ABox" differentiation is a key point for me - if we commit to saying that individuals cannot be classes and vice versa, how much expressivity (and semantic inference) can we support?

[MW] TBox/ABox is just the same as the data model/data distinction. Nothing new, just new clothes.

Regards
Matthew

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_jg5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/a613d8b2-42c9-bed9-c74c-c4e8cc063629%40kraines.net.

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 2, 2020, 5:17:39 AM8/2/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Matthew,

I think I understand what you are saying about existence. But
that means that anything we can conceive in our minds (that we
can talk about) is an object. And does that mean that we
therefore cannot conceive in our minds of anything that is not
an object?

Regarding OWL and alternatives, I came up with the following
little example of a definition for "bicycle" as a "system" that
is human propelled and has exactly two wheels (obviously not
a complete definition, but...). I do not see how any
controlled language could be sufficiently controlled to assure
that any person writing this definition would end up with an
identical logical representation....

*********************************************************

Prefix(:=<http://www.asam.net/ontologies/2020/7/bicycleTest#>)
Prefix(owl:=<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>)
Prefix(rdf:=<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>)
Prefix(xml:=<http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace>)
Prefix(xsd:=<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>)
Prefix(rdfs:=<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>)

Ontology(<http://www.asam.net/ontologies/2020/7/bicycleTest2>

Declaration(Class(:bicycle))
Declaration(Class(:human))
Declaration(Class(:human_propelled_activity))
Declaration(Class(:human_propelled_object))
Declaration(Class(:system))
Declaration(Class(:two_wheeled_object))
Declaration(Class(:wheel))
Declaration(Class(:whole_life_individual))
Declaration(ObjectProperty(:actee_of))
Declaration(ObjectProperty(:actor_of))
Declaration(ObjectProperty(:has_actee))
Declaration(ObjectProperty(:has_actor))
Declaration(ObjectProperty(:has_part))

############################
# Classes
############################

# Class: :bicycle (:bicycle)

SubClassOf(:bicycle :human_propelled_object)
SubClassOf(:bicycle :system)
SubClassOf(:bicycle :two_wheeled_object)
SubClassOf(:bicycle :whole_life_individual)

# Class: :human_propelled_activity (:human_propelled_activity)

EquivalentClasses(:human_propelled_activity
ObjectSomeValuesFrom(:has_actor :human))

# Class: :human_propelled_object (:human_propelled_object)

EquivalentClasses(:human_propelled_object ObjectSomeValuesFrom(:actee_of
:human_propelled_activity))

# Class: :two_wheeled_object (:two_wheeled_object)

EquivalentClasses(:two_wheeled_object ObjectExactCardinality(2 :has_part
:wheel))

)

*******************************************************

Obviously we can make a natural language representation of
the code above, so we can translate from OWL to ACE (or even
ordinary English, Japanese, etc. etc.), but I don't see
that it is possible to translate 100% from ACE to OWL...

Steven

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 2, 2020, 6:12:36 AM8/2/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Steven,

Hi Matthew,

I think I understand what you are saying about existence. But that means that anything we can conceive in our minds (that we can talk about) is an object.

[MW] More particularly anything our ontology allows us to talk about is an object.

And does that mean that we therefore cannot conceive in our minds of anything that is not an object?

[MW] If our ontology does not allow us to talk about it then it is not an object for that ontology.

Regarding OWL and alternatives, I came up with the following little example of a definition for "bicycle" as a "system" that is human propelled and has exactly two wheels (obviously not a complete definition, but...). I do not see how any controlled language could be sufficiently controlled to assure that any person writing this definition would end up with an identical logical representation....

[MW] It all boils down to first order logic, and having standard language for saying "For all", "There exists", "and", "or", "not", "is an instance of", "is a subtype of" and the other logical symbols. After that it is a matter of processing that into your logical language of choice. So you might choose "Each" instead of (or as an alternative to "For all" and get:
Each bicycle is a two wheeled vehicle.
Adrian Walker has a system that can work with sentences like that directly.
https://www.executable-english.com/ibl_login.html
Regards
Matthew

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/0c26aa50-33bd-9342-0517-7cbcdd2051cf%40kraines.net.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 2, 2020, 7:11:21 AM8/2/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Matthew,

Wow there has been a lot of discussion!

Can I deal with one important point?

I think that these comments can be read in a way that is not quite right.

WRT

[MW] This is not about favourites, it is about coming up with terms that resonate with our target audience, and are least likely to confuse.

[MW] Well fortunately philosophers are not in our target audience. Both class and type are seen in IT as carrying baggage of various sorts, and at least kind does not have that. However, the use in the SC4 work was in the sense of natural kind, the things that have nouns/noun phrases as names, and so does not have the formality we will probably need as a top level term, but is useful for those things that do have names. At a formal level, if we mean set, I think we should use that term. Although there are varieties of set, it is relatively easy to clarify that.

[MW] Whichever way you look at it we will need to land on some terms, and it will not be a matter of which anyone likes, it will be a matter of trying to identify ones that will cause least confusion to our target audience. The exercise they are going through in SC4 is a non-arbitrary way to arrive at terms that seem to be achieving that for an engineering audience after considering various alternatives. (You should see some of the “favourites” that have been set aside).

So let me explain.

You say " At a formal level, if we mean set, I think we should use that term."

It seems to me that the reason for that is that sets are studied in mathematics and logic and this is the term the experts there use. If a topic is studied in a discipline and they have a standard term, it does not make sense to reinvent it. Though IT has a long tradition of doing this. I don't see how 'resonating with our audience' is relevant to the choice - though obviously it needs to be explained, as far as possible, in a way the intended audience understands.

You say " Well fortunately philosophers are not in our target audience." I think you are being disingenuous here. What is at issue is where the topic/content is worked upon. If we were explaining quantum mechanics, would we say don't use the terms/phrases quantization, wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle as physicists are not in our audience and their standard terms won't resonate with an IT/IS audience? I doubt it. And if we did, we would not be helping any of the audience that then tried to find more about the topic - as the connection with the source of the work would be lost. And if we don't make the connection, our audience could easily think we are reinventing the wheel from scratch in areas and ignoring the millennia of work already done.

The situation is even clearer with philosophical terms. While the basic research (and so most naming) is done by pure philosophers - the science side of things. There is a long established tradition in IT/IS of ontological engineering that uses these terms - the engineering side - see e.g. the journal Applied Ontology - https://www.iospress.nl/journal/applied-ontology/.

So if I really parody your suggestion, we could say that as our audience is IT in construction and as most of them are unfamiliar with these other fields in IT we should use terms that they would be happy with - rather than the standard terms of art. I'm sure you did not mean this, but one could read what you said this way.

And, if we calibrate the terms to each target audience, this is a recipe for proliferating different terms for the same sense: preferring Babel over a lingua franca. Odd, when we are aiming for interoperability. Should we not eat our own dog food?

I'd suggest a much better principle is to look at where the content originates and what terms are used there - and as far as possible use these to minimise confusion. Of course, this gets difficult when there are multiple communities in play - as well as multiple terms. But we need to show we actually tried to harmonise them. And there is always friction when new terms are introduced, so this needs to be smoothed. But proliferating terms and breaking connections with their standard use seems to be a short-term and short-sighted policy - if we expect what we produce to be used.

So I suggest we need to articulate what the candidate terms are, especially the standard terms of art (as decided by the experts in the area) and then the reasons for selecting one.

And I cannot see how we can avoid this by claiming that a particular notional audience will not 'resonate', so we need a new, different term.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/000d01d66808%24ea4e85d0%24beeb9170%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 2, 2020, 7:32:46 AM8/2/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Matthew, (Steven,)

See inline.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 15:06, <matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Steve and Chris,
I agree with most of what Chris says here, However, there is one point where I feel obliged to put an alternative view.

[MW] …

WRT "Also, if I understand what you wrote below correctly, according to a materialist, classes and tuples are not objects (or so they would object!). Is that correct?"
> So a materialist is likely to object to the existence of abstract,
> non-material, objects. Asking questions such as - how we could know them
> and how could they have any causal effect on anything.

No. There are a number of senses of abstract. I attach an entry on abstraction that I like for its comprehensiveness.
The (standard) sense of abstract I was using is that of not being located in space-time and having no causal influence - as distinct from concrete. Classes and tuples are located in space-time - see David Lewis On the Plurality of Worlds - p. 81 onwards - 1. 7 Concreteness: "But a set of located things does seem to have a location, though perhaps a divided location: it is where its members are. Thus my unit set is right here, exactly where I am; the set of you and me is partly here where I am, partly yonder where you are; and so on."
[MW] I don’t doubt that David Lewis said that, and I generally like what David Lewis says, but you can generally find a philosopher that supports any point of view you care for, and I don’t know any that haven’t made the odd mistake (even Chris😊). I think the problem is that the main difference between a set and an aggregate is that an aggregate of material objects has mass, and a set doesn’t. It is a bit hard for a simple soul like me to see how something that has no mass (but has members with mass) is still itself located (what is there if there is no mass to be located?). It does not have mass through its members, so I see no special reason (or use) to it have location through its members.

CP> You are just stipulating that sets have no mass. On what basis do you do this?

CP> To paraphrase David Lewis. If I put a weight on the scale to measure its mass, it has a mass. Why doesn't its singleton set have a mass? There is a perfectly obvious way in which it does. Similarly, if I put a couple of weights on the scale, they have a mass. Why doesn't their set? What argument (apart from prejudice or habit) is there for saying they don't.

CP> There are lots of examples from natural language of sets having concrete properties. But perhaps a stronger argument is from neuroscience - apparently we have receptors in the retina that 'sense' sets of objects and track them (Churchland). So if we talk about and sense sets with physical properties, it seems a little perverse to make claims about one's personal intuition that they don't (especially given the general weakness of personal intuition arguments).

I notice some philosophers get very exercised about abstract objects, and try to eliminate them, either it seems by trying to avoid them (as Goodman and Quine did) or by claiming that objects many might reasonably think of as abstract aren’t really after all. I’m not yet convinced this is not all game playing of some sort.
On the other hand, there is something called grounding, and you can reasonably claim that you sets are grounded if they have as members (or members of members etc) particulars of some sort. That is something I find more useful, since in my experience understanding how you are grounded is a considerable aid to analysis and can help you avoid mistakes.

CP> There seems to be some confusion here.

CP> Don't the arguments against abstract objects parallel the gounding argument?

CP> How do you learn about abstract objects which have no spatio-temporal or causal properties? Some special kind of intuition?

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/001301d6680c%24d31763b0%2479462b10%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 2, 2020, 7:50:31 AM8/2/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Matthew, Steven,

inline - mainly agreeing heartily with Matthew,

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk

M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 11:12, <matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Steven,

Hi Matthew,

I think I understand what you are saying about existence. But that means that anything we can conceive in our minds (that we can talk about) is an object.
[MW] More particularly anything our ontology allows us to talk about is an object.

CP> +10

CP> That is the job of the ontology.

And does that mean that we therefore cannot conceive in our minds of anything that is not an object?
[MW] If our ontology does not allow us to talk about it then it is not an object for that ontology.

CP> +10

CP> That is the job of the ontology.

Regarding OWL and alternatives, I came up with the following little example of a definition for "bicycle" as a "system" that is human propelled and has exactly two wheels (obviously not a complete definition, but...). I do not see how any controlled language could be sufficiently controlled to assure that any person writing this definition would end up with an identical logical representation....
[MW] It all boils down to first order logic, and having standard language for saying "For all", "There exists", "and", "or", "not", "is an instance of", "is a subtype of" and the other logical symbols. After that it is a matter of processing that into your logical language of choice. So you might choose "Each" instead of (or as an alternative to "For all" and get:
Each bicycle is a two wheeled vehicle.
Adrian Walker has a system that can work with sentences like that directly.
https://www.executable-english.com/ibl_login.html

CP> There is the interesting question of how much the formalisation of something includes choices of interpretation - Catarina Dutilh Novaes has interesting things to say on this - see https://www.scielo.br/pdf/kr/v56n131/0100-512X-kr-56-131-0253.pdf

CP> There is also the interesting question about what you mean by 'definition' here?

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/002401d668b5%244a9ed1e0%24dfdc75a0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

Rob Guthrie

unread,

Aug 2, 2020, 8:24:59 AM8/2/20

to fdm ndt

Hi all,

Following the conversation with interest, as a comment I would suggest Chris's final paragraph cuts to the chase.

So I suggest we need to articulate what the candidate terms are, especially the standard terms of art (as decided by the experts in the area) and then the reasons for selecting one.

And I cannot see how we can avoid this by claiming that a particular notional audience will not 'resonate', so we need a new, different term.

My understanding is that the purpose of the FDM is to provide a solid logical basis for enabling interoperability, a separate requirement from "resonating" to audiences, the bulk of which is more likely to to take place within the necessary interpretation and application to already existing and disparate domains, disciplines, industry or peer data models etc.

Cheers, Rob

Rob Guthrie
Enterprise Data Architect, Chimera DL
-------------------------------------------------
Wood Centre for Innovation,
Stansfield Park, Quarry Road,
Oxford OX3 8SB

Tel: (+44) 1865 546440
Mobile: (+44) 7411 419942
Email: robgu...@chimeradatalabs.com

Chimera DL logo

“Chimera DL” is a trading name of Chimera Datalabs Ltd. Registered in England & Wales, No.07774234.
Registered Office: Suite 1, 2nd Floor Everdene House, Deansleigh Road Bournemouth BH7 7DU.

From: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Chris Partridge <partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
Sent: 02 August 2020 12:11
To: fdm ndt <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrLsuvd7nYOjRiKcKwpDmOq5C4wThC4WxoU2RodEx%2BBCA%40mail.gmail.com.

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 2, 2020, 10:25:17 PM8/2/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Matthew and Chris,

Thanks for the clarification!

So basically, the definition of object is:

"an object is anything that the ontology allows us to talk about".

This seems to lead to a rather interesting (at least for me!)
definition of ontology as:

"what we are allowed to talk about"

Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Finally, I personally like how ISO 704 defines ;)
(intensional) definition (in the context of terminology work):

"The role of an intensional definition is to provide the minimum amount
of information that forms the basis for
abstraction and that allows one to recognize and differentiate the
concept from other related concepts,
especially coordinate concepts. An intensional definition shall define
the concept as a unit with an
unambiguous intension reflected by a unique extension. The unique
combination of characteristics creating
the intension shall identify the concept and differentiate it from other
concepts.

Intensional definitions shall include the superordinate concept
immediately above, followed by the delimiting
characteristic(s). The superordinate concept situates the concept in its
proper context in the concept system
(i.e. ‘mice’ among ‘pointing devices’, ‘trees’ among ‘plants’). In
practice, intensional definitions are preferable
to other types of definitions and should be used whenever possible as
they most clearly reveal the
characteristics of a concept within a concept system."

Steven

On 2020/08/02 20:50, Chris Partridge wrote:
> Hi Matthew, Steven,
>
> inline - mainly agreeing heartily with Matthew,
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
>
>

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |
> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>
>
>

> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> >> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >>
> >> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> >> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU Registered in England & Wales | Company
> >> No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> >> 6100 58
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 03:09, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>

> >> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Chris,
> >>

> >> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> >> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> >> >
> >> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street,
> Henley on
> >> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> >> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT
> No. GB 905
> >> > 6100 58
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >

> >> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 14:29, Chris Partridge
> >> > <partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>

> >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> >> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> >> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> >> >
> >> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street,
> >> Henley on
> >> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> >> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 |
> VAT No. GB
> >> > 905 6100 58
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ��>

> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>
> >> >>>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>

> >> >>> >
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> >> >>>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>>.

> >> >>> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> >>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> You received this message because you are
> subscribed
> >> to the Google
> >> >>> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> >> emails from it,
> >> >>> send an email to
> >> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>
> >> >>>
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>.

> >> >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> You received this message because you are
> subscribed to
> >> the Google
> >> >>> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> emails
> >> from it, send
> >> >>> an email to
> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>.

> >> >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com
> >> >>>
> >>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> >>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > CAESAR Systems Limited
> >> > mob: +44 77 0702 6926
> >> > registered address: 56 Micheldever Road, London,
> SE12 8LU, UK
> >> > company number: 02422371
> >> > VAT number: 548 0510 55
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are
> subscribed to the
> >> > Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> emails from
> >> > it, send an email to
> >> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> >> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>.

> >> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >> >
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk
> >> >
> >>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> >> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it, send
> >> > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> >> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>.

> >> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >> >
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com
> >> >
> >>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> >> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> >> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.
> >> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/06e5e94a-f97e-b389-167d-32178cb86002%40kraines.net.
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> >> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.
> >> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_j
> >> g 5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com
> <http://40mail.gmail.com>

> >>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_jg5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> > To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/a613d8b2-42c9-bed9-c74c-c4e8cc063629%40kraines.net.
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/0c26aa50-33bd-9342-0517-7cbcdd2051cf%40kraines.net.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/002401d668b5%244a9ed1e0%24dfdc75a0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrLz4Hqrb4kfRMqd6kGVfC0aRGrmitzMiRDVaYzp-G6_g%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrLz4Hqrb4kfRMqd6kGVfC0aRGrmitzMiRDVaYzp-G6_g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 3, 2020, 3:34:39 AM8/3/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Chris,

Do I take it then that you will stop introducing terms yourself (like object) that do not have good precedence in the “art” and which do have an ordinary meaning for our users that is likely to confuse (as the correspondence with Steven bears witness)?

Otherwise it does rather seem like one rule for you and another for everyone else.

Regards

Matthew West

From: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
Sent: 02 August 2020 12:11
To: fdm ndt <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft

Hi Matthew,

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrLsuvd7nYOjRiKcKwpDmOq5C4wThC4WxoU2RodEx%2BBCA%40mail.gmail.com.

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 3, 2020, 3:52:40 AM8/3/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Chris,

WRT "Also, if I understand what you wrote below correctly, according to a materialist, classes and tuples are not objects (or so they would object!). Is that correct?"
> So a materialist is likely to object to the existence of abstract,
> non-material, objects. Asking questions such as - how we could know them
> and how could they have any causal effect on anything.

No. There are a number of senses of abstract. I attach an entry on abstraction that I like for its comprehensiveness.
The (standard) sense of abstract I was using is that of not being located in space-time and having no causal influence - as distinct from concrete. Classes and tuples are located in space-time - see David Lewis On the Plurality of Worlds - p. 81 onwards - 1. 7 Concreteness: "But a set of located things does seem to have a location, though perhaps a divided location: it is where its members are. Thus my unit set is right here, exactly where I am; the set of you and me is partly here where I am, partly yonder where you are; and so on."
[MW] I don’t doubt that David Lewis said that, and I generally like what David Lewis says, but you can generally find a philosopher that supports any point of view you care for, and I don’t know any that haven’t made the odd mistake (even Chris😊). I think the problem is that the main difference between a set and an aggregate is that an aggregate of material objects has mass, and a set doesn’t. It is a bit hard for a simple soul like me to see how something that has no mass (but has members with mass) is still itself located (what is there if there is no mass to be located?). It does not have mass through its members, so I see no special reason (or use) to it have location through its members.

CP> You are just stipulating that sets have no mass. On what basis do you do this?

[MW] It would at least be inconvenient if they did. If they do, when I now want to know what the mass of some collection of objects is, it appears I can choose either to form the set or the aggregate of the collection, and each will have a mass. Which one should I use when (given we want only one way to do things)?

The approach I have always taken is that the aggregate has the properties of the sum of the parts, and the set has the properties that apply to each member of the set.

CP> To paraphrase David Lewis. If I put a weight on the scale to measure its mass, it has a mass. Why doesn't its singleton set have a mass? There is a perfectly obvious way in which it does. Similarly, if I put a couple of weights on the scale, they have a mass. Why doesn't their set? What argument (apart from prejudice or habit) is there for saying they don't.

[MW] How is it that a membership relationship conveys the sum of properties to the set? Presumably then, this mass is propagated upwards to sets of sets. How does that happen when set membership is not transitive and the original particulars are not even members of the set?

CP> There are lots of examples from natural language of sets having concrete properties. But perhaps a stronger argument is from neuroscience - apparently we have receptors in the retina that 'sense' sets of objects and track them (Churchland).

[MW] Can you give details of that reference please? It is not clear to me why it is a set specifically that is being sensed, and whether that has any bearing on sets having aggregate properties.

So if we talk about and sense sets with physical properties, it seems a little perverse to make claims about one's personal intuition that they don't (especially given the general weakness of personal intuition arguments).

[MW] The question is whether it is the members of the set that have physical properties or the set itself. It seems to me that if sets have aggregate properties then we do not need one of aggregates or sets. I’d be interested in your view of which we should abandon, or how we clearly distinguish between how we should use each.

I notice some philosophers get very exercised about abstract objects, and try to eliminate them, either it seems by trying to avoid them (as Goodman and Quine did) or by claiming that objects many might reasonably think of as abstract aren’t really after all. I’m not yet convinced this is not all game playing of some sort.
On the other hand, there is something called grounding, and you can reasonably claim that you sets are grounded if they have as members (or members of members etc) particulars of some sort. That is something I find more useful, since in my experience understanding how you are grounded is a considerable aid to analysis and can help you avoid mistakes.

CP> There seems to be some confusion here.

CP> Don't the arguments against abstract objects parallel the gounding argument?

[MW] I don’t think so. I think the issue is that they get conflated.

CP> How do you learn about abstract objects which have no spatio-temporal or causal properties? Some special kind of intuition?

[MW] Sets are constructed, that does not require them to have spatio-temporal or causal properties. The issue is whether the nature of the relationship between set members and their sets conveys in an additive way any spatio-temporal or causal properties.

Regards

Matthew

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrEkFcVX%2BYYw9jV%3D8GZVTn6xxrvTP7QAEy%3D3h07%2B%2Bvu2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 3, 2020, 3:56:37 AM8/3/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Matthew,

In what sense is 'object' not a standard term of the art?

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to think it is the preferred term.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/ "Nonetheless there are candidates for such a fully general office, including thing, being, entity, item, existent, and—especially—object.[2]"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-objects/ "Possible Objects - Deep theorizing about possibility requires theorizing about possible objects."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/ "Nonexistent Objects - Are there nonexistent objects, i.e., objects that do not exist?"

When we were considering names, this is one of the reasons we went for the term.

Historically, 'entity' is associated with Aristotelianism - through the Latin translation - ens being.

Object has its origins in the medieval Latin objectum ‘something presented to the mind’ - and was used from Locke onwards - "It shall suffice to my present Purpose, to consider the discerning Faculties of a Man, as they are employ’d about the Objects, which they have to do with …. " (I.1.2, N: 43–4—the three numbers, are book, chapter and section numbers respectively, followed by the page number in the Nidditch edition of the Essay)

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/004201d66968%246267e6a0%242737b3e0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 3, 2020, 4:25:46 AM8/3/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Matthew,

Looking through the answers below, it seems to me that you have not presented any real arguments why types (or a specific kind of type - set) cannot, in principle, have properties such as mass and location.

You document your approach (e.g The approach I have always taken ), but I cannot see anything that precludes another approach in principle.

From a historical point of view, for example, Descartes introduced the 'way of ideas' (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ideas/) and "In writing An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Locke adopted Descartes’ ‘way of ideas’" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/. And the prime interesting property of these ideas were that they had the same properties as particulars - height, colour and so on (of course, one cannot see exact mass, though one could estimate it). And the problems arose when they did not - Locke noting that it was difficult to have an idea of the general triangle. So there is quite a precedent for types to have these properties. So one would need to explain why one's in principle argument somehow proved that this was impossible.

I suspect that a number of senses of abstract are being confused here. It would be good if you said what sense you are using.

I offer some from SEP based on Davis Lewis's work. Of course, you are free to choose others.

"According to a longstanding tradition in philosophical psychology, abstraction is a distinctive mental process in which new ideas or conceptions are formed by considering several objects or ideas and omitting the features that distinguish them. For example, if one is given a range of white things of varying shapes and sizes; one ignores or ‘abstracts from’ the respects in which they differ, and thereby attains the abstract idea of whiteness. Nothing in this tradition requires that ideas formed in this way represent or correspond to a distinctive kind of object. But it might be maintained that the distinction between abstract and concrete objects should be explained by reference to the psychological process of abstraction or something like it. The simplest version of this strategy would be to say that an object is abstract if it is (or might be) the referent of an abstract idea, i.e., an idea formed by abstraction." - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/#WayAbst

"According to the Way of Conflation, the abstract/concrete distinction is to be identified with one or another metaphysical distinction already familiar under another name: as it might be, the distinction between sets and individuals, or the distinction between universals and particulars. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/#WayConf

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/#WayNega "According to the account implicit in Frege’s writings, An object is abstract if and only if it is both non-mental and non-sensible."

Some responses in line.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 08:52, <matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Chris,

WRT "Also, if I understand what you wrote below correctly, according to a materialist, classes and tuples are not objects (or so they would object!). Is that correct?"
> So a materialist is likely to object to the existence of abstract,
> non-material, objects. Asking questions such as - how we could know them
> and how could they have any causal effect on anything.

No. There are a number of senses of abstract. I attach an entry on abstraction that I like for its comprehensiveness.
The (standard) sense of abstract I was using is that of not being located in space-time and having no causal influence - as distinct from concrete. Classes and tuples are located in space-time - see David Lewis On the Plurality of Worlds - p. 81 onwards - 1. 7 Concreteness: "But a set of located things does seem to have a location, though perhaps a divided location: it is where its members are. Thus my unit set is right here, exactly where I am; the set of you and me is partly here where I am, partly yonder where you are; and so on."
[MW] I don’t doubt that David Lewis said that, and I generally like what David Lewis says, but you can generally find a philosopher that supports any point of view you care for, and I don’t know any that haven’t made the odd mistake (even Chris😊). I think the problem is that the main difference between a set and an aggregate is that an aggregate of material objects has mass, and a set doesn’t. It is a bit hard for a simple soul like me to see how something that has no mass (but has members with mass) is still itself located (what is there if there is no mass to be located?). It does not have mass through its members, so I see no special reason (or use) to it have location through its members.
CP> You are just stipulating that sets have no mass. On what basis do you do this?
[MW] It would at least be inconvenient if they did. If they do, when I now want to know what the mass of some collection of objects is, it appears I can choose either to form the set or the aggregate of the collection, and each will have a mass. Which one should I use when (given we want only one way to do things)?
The approach I have always taken is that the aggregate has the properties of the sum of the parts, and the set has the properties that apply to each member of the set.

CP> To paraphrase David Lewis. If I put a weight on the scale to measure its mass, it has a mass. Why doesn't its singleton set have a mass? There is a perfectly obvious way in which it does. Similarly, if I put a couple of weights on the scale, they have a mass. Why doesn't their set? What argument (apart from prejudice or habit) is there for saying they don't.
[MW] How is it that a membership relationship conveys the sum of properties to the set? Presumably then, this mass is propagated upwards to sets of sets. How does that happen when set membership is not transitive and the original particulars are not even members of the set?

CP>> I have shared Fine's paper with you (Towards a theory of part ), where he discusses transitivity - didn't you read this?

CP> There are lots of examples from natural language of sets having concrete properties. But perhaps a stronger argument is from neuroscience - apparently we have receptors in the retina that 'sense' sets of objects and track them (Churchland).
[MW] Can you give details of that reference please? It is not clear to me why it is a set specifically that is being sensed, and whether that has any bearing on sets having aggregate properties.

CP>> paper attached.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/004701d6696a%24dc41fbd0%2494c5f370%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

[Churchland] A Critique of Pure Vision 1994-2933.pdf

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 3, 2020, 6:13:48 AM8/3/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Steven,

I think some things may have got lost in translation :)

See inline below.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk

M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 03:25, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net> wrote:

Hi Matthew and Chris,

Thanks for the clarification!

So basically, the definition of object is:

"an object is anything that the ontology allows us to talk about".

CP> I have a horrible feeling this can be read in a couple of ways, so to make sure:

CP> The ontology model/language places no constraints on how you talk when not using it. So in natural language where there are few constraints, one can say the round square object on the table doesn't exist.

CP> The constraints apply when using the ontology language to 'talk about objects' - then hopefully the language helps you to avoid talking about things that don't exist.

This seems to lead to a rather interesting (at least for me!)
definition of ontology as:

"what we are allowed to talk about"

CP> a way of constraining, within the ontology model/language to things we have made a commitment that they exist.

Or am I misunderstanding something here?

CP> Not sure, maybe, maybe not - what do you think given my clarifications

Finally, I personally like how ISO 704 defines ;)
(intensional) definition (in the context of terminology work):

"The role of an intensional definition is to provide the minimum amount
of information that forms the basis for
abstraction and that allows one to recognize and differentiate the
concept from other related concepts,
especially coordinate concepts. An intensional definition shall define
the concept as a unit with an
unambiguous intension reflected by a unique extension. The unique
combination of characteristics creating
the intension shall identify the concept and differentiate it from other
concepts.

Intensional definitions shall include the superordinate concept
immediately above, followed by the delimiting
characteristic(s). The superordinate concept situates the concept in its
proper context in the concept system
(i.e. ‘mice’ among ‘pointing devices’, ‘trees’ among ‘plants’). In
practice, intensional definitions are preferable
to other types of definitions and should be used whenever possible as
they most clearly reveal the
characteristics of a concept within a concept system."

CP> This is pretty much based upon Aristotelian differentiae but using concepts. Fr those wanting a lot more detail on Aristotle - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/ - for a take on ISO's use of concepts see - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry_Smith4/publication/7603265_Wusteria/links/53cfbc160cf2f7e53cf82672/Wuesteria.pdf.

CP> Okay. Can you give some examples of these kinds of definitions, so we have some evidence to work with.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/18ae2f0c-aede-80d5-cbd4-7832746678e9%40kraines.net.

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 3, 2020, 7:50:10 AM8/3/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris,

Yes - my experience is that translation is ALWAYS lossy
(English-Japanese in my case ;) ).

> "an object is anything that the ontology allows us to talk about".
>
> CP> I have a horrible feeling this can be read in a couple of ways, so
> to make sure:
> CP> The ontology model/language places no constraints on how you talk
> when not using it. So in natural language where there are few
> constraints, one can say the round square object on the table doesn't
exist.
> CP> The constraints apply when using the ontology language to 'talk
> about objects' - then hopefully the language helps you to avoid
talking about things that don't exist.

My fear (hopefully ungrounded) is that the definition of object
above is circular and therefore not particularly meaningful...

> This seems to lead to a rather interesting (at least for me!)
> definition of ontology as:
>
> "what we are allowed to talk about"
>
> CP> a way of constraining, within the ontology model/language to
things we have made a commitment that they exist.

Perhaps one way to think about it is that null sets are not objects?
For example, the set of Kings of the USA (at least not yet). And
the set of squares that are round, things that are both on top of
and underneath the table (wholly and at the same time), etc.

I will give you some examples of definitions that I have been
working on in a separate email. :)

Steven

On 2020/08/03 19:13, Chris Partridge wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>

> I think some things may have got lost in translation :)
> See inline below.
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
>
>

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |
> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>
>
>

> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >
> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> > 6100 58
> >
> >
> >

> > On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 11:12,
> <matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk
> <mailto:matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk>

> > <mailto:matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

> > <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > >> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> > >>
> > >> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street,
> Henley on
> > >> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU Registered in England & Wales |
> Company
> > >> No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> > >> 6100 58
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>

> > >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 03:09, Steven Kraines
> <ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>
> > <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>

> > >> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Chris,
> > >>

> > >> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 14:29, Chris Partridge
> > >> > <partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>

> > >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>

> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>

> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>

> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>

> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>

> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>>.

> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>

> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>

> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>.

> > >> >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> You received this message because you are
> > subscribed to
> > >> the Google
> > >> >>> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop
> receiving
> > emails
> > >> from it, send
> > >> >>> an email to
> > uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>>.

> > >> >>> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> > >>
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > CAESAR Systems Limited
> > >> > mob: +44 77 0702 6926
> > >> > registered address: 56 Micheldever Road, London,
> > SE12 8LU, UK
> > >> > company number: 02422371
> > >> > VAT number: 548 0510 55
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > You received this message because you are
> > subscribed to the
> > >> > Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> > emails from
> > >> > it, send an email to
> > >> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>>.

> > >> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed
> to the
> > Google
> > >> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> > from it, send
> > >> > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>>.

> > >> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> > Google
> > >> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> emails from it,
> > >> send an email to
> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>.
> > >> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >>
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/06e5e94a-f97e-b389-167d-32178cb86002%40kraines.net.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> > >> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it,
> > >> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>.
> > >> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_j
> > >> g 5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com
> <http://40mail.gmail.com>
> > <http://40mail.gmail.com>
> > >>
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_jg5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it,
> > send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.
> > > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/a613d8b2-42c9-bed9-c74c-c4e8cc063629%40kraines.net.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> > send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.
> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/0c26aa50-33bd-9342-0517-7cbcdd2051cf%40kraines.net.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> > send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.
> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/002401d668b5%244a9ed1e0%24dfdc75a0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.
> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrLz4Hqrb4kfRMqd6kGVfC0aRGrmitzMiRDVaYzp-G6_g%40mail.gmail.com
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrLz4Hqrb4kfRMqd6kGVfC0aRGrmitzMiRDVaYzp-G6_g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/18ae2f0c-aede-80d5-cbd4-7832746678e9%40kraines.net.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRoO179JpX_%2BLzS%2BSNTP5116B7%2BMQ-E6gHGydytu0yFrRg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRoO179JpX_%2BLzS%2BSNTP5116B7%2BMQ-E6gHGydytu0yFrRg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 3, 2020, 8:30:28 AM8/3/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Steven,

WRT "Perhaps one way to think about it is that null sets are not objects?"

I can see this is tempting, and if you are extensional, then it kinda works. You can go constructional, with a SET-BUILDER and then these non-existent things do not get generated - see https://www.academia.edu/40354620/ and https://www.academia.edu/35222673/

But this is a choice as always, some people will want to allow null sets in their ontologies - pure set theorists, for example. (If you want to get technical, there is also the case of null parts :)

The issue is, I think, that you need to be clear what is in and why.

WRT "My fear (hopefully ungrounded) is that the definition of object above is circular and therefore not particularly meaningful...

Ahh, not an objection I'd anticipated. I have a phobia for definitions, so I certainly was not intending to give one in any serious sense. Just a partial explanation to help clear things up. Anyway, how is it circular? I'm guessing it isn't because you have scruples about absolute generality.

And, to muddy the waters, there is no obligation for a top ontology to have this most general term as part of its language. The stratified ontologies in the sample will not have this term. For example, (going alphabetically) BFOs 'entity' does not have any of the universals in the top level diagram in its extension. Similarly CIDOC's 'entity' and so on.

Stratification imposes this feature as a type/concept/entity that has everything that exists in its extension would necessarily be unstratified as it would need to include entities from two levels.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk

M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/d7edc04a-6cc7-1d64-6d72-e70bcf813eb4%40kraines.net.

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 3, 2020, 7:33:39 PM8/3/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris,

> WRT "My fear (hopefully ungrounded) is that the definition of
> object above is circular and therefore not particularly meaningful...
> Ahh, not an objection I'd anticipated. I have a phobia for definitions,
> so I certainly was not intending to give one in any serious sense. Just
> a partial explanation to help clear things up. Anyway, how is it
> circular? I'm guessing it isn't because you have scruples about absolute
> generality.

I think my worry was that we will probably want to say things like
"XXX is an object" which seems to beg the question, okay what is
NOT an object? But we need a term to ground our discussion - I
prefer to use "thing", but after all "what is in a name"? :)
Perhaps we should use "toves" or "borogoves" ;)

I am curious - what is it that you dislike about definitions?

Steven

On 2020/08/03 21:30, Chris Partridge wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |
> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>
>
>

> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 12:50, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net

> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>

> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >
> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> > 6100 58
> >
> >
> >

> > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 03:25, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>

> > <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> > >
> > > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street,
> Henley on
> > > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT
> No. GB 905
> > > 6100 58
> > >
> > >
> > >

> > > >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 03:09, Steven Kraines
> > <ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>
> > > <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>>

> > > >> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>
> > <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Chris,
> > > >>

> > > >> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 14:29, Chris Partridge
> > > >> > <partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>>

> > > >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> > > >> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252525252B...@googlegroups.com>>>>>

> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252525252B...@googlegroups.com>>>>>

> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252525252B...@googlegroups.com>>>>>>.

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>

> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252525252B...@googlegroups.com>>>>>

> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252525252B...@googlegroups.com>>>>>.

> > > >> >>> To view this discussion on the
> web, visit
> > > >> >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> --
> > > >> >>> You received this message because you are
> > > subscribed to
> > > >> the Google
> > > >> >>> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop
> > receiving
> > > emails
> > > >> from it, send
> > > >> >>> an email to
> > > uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>>.

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>>.

> > > >> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/3a857257-f3ff-34dd-b537-01c5e46a1629%40caesarsystems.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > You received this message because you are
> subscribed
> > to the
> > > Google
> > > >> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop
> receiving emails
> > > from it, send
> > > >> > an email to
> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>>.

> > > >> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrBssuznURZhC2Krt7wW2ZK64JF4cPxiJux7fzqt5%2BDOg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> You received this message because you are
> subscribed to the
> > > Google
> > > >> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> > emails from it,
> > > >> send an email to
> > uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>

> > > >> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>
> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2525252Bu...@googlegroups.com>>>>.
> > > >> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > > >>
> > >
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/06e5e94a-f97e-b389-167d-32178cb86002%40kraines.net.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed
> to the
> > Google
> > > >> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> > from it,
> > > >> send an email to
> uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_j
> > > >> g 5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com
> <http://40mail.gmail.com>
> > <http://40mail.gmail.com>
> > > <http://40mail.gmail.com>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqYK_KxgL0%2B0_jg5LxhFJB%3D_9wsYjdEr6H8hsd7V-Xo0A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed
> to the
> > Google
> > > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> > from it,
> > > send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>.
> > > > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/a613d8b2-42c9-bed9-c74c-c4e8cc063629%40kraines.net.
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google
> > > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it,
> > > send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>.
> > > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/0c26aa50-33bd-9342-0517-7cbcdd2051cf%40kraines.net.
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google
> > > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it,
> > > send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>>>.
> > > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/002401d668b5%244a9ed1e0%24dfdc75a0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> > > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it, send
> > > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>.
> > > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrLz4Hqrb4kfRMqd6kGVfC0aRGrmitzMiRDVaYzp-G6_g%40mail.gmail.com
> > >
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrLz4Hqrb4kfRMqd6kGVfC0aRGrmitzMiRDVaYzp-G6_g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> > send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.
> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/18ae2f0c-aede-80d5-cbd4-7832746678e9%40kraines.net.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.
> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRoO179JpX_%2BLzS%2BSNTP5116B7%2BMQ-E6gHGydytu0yFrRg%40mail.gmail.com
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRoO179JpX_%2BLzS%2BSNTP5116B7%2BMQ-E6gHGydytu0yFrRg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/d7edc04a-6cc7-1d64-6d72-e70bcf813eb4%40kraines.net.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRr2LHvYGMbu%2BGzLdj-8awnF1ZA251qonvDbvXEUtpi0Fg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRr2LHvYGMbu%2BGzLdj-8awnF1ZA251qonvDbvXEUtpi0Fg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 4, 2020, 2:40:13 AM8/4/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Steven,

You asked what I don't like about definitions.

Could you indulge me with a few examples of what you would consider definitions? You have already provided a definition of definitions so we have one :).

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 4, 2020, 2:44:25 AM8/4/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris,

I sent a few to you to your personal email account.

Steven

On 2020/08/04 15:39, Chris Partridge wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>

> You asked what I don't like about definitions.
> Could you indulge me with a few examples of what you would consider
> definitions? You have already provided a definition of definitions so we
> have one :).
>
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, 00:33 Steven Kraines, <ste...@kraines.net

> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>

> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >
> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> > 6100 58
> >
> >
> >

> > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 12:50, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net
> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>

> > <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >

> > <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> > >
> > > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street,
> Henley on
> > > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT
> No. GB 905
> > > 6100 58
> > >
> > >
> > >

> > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 03:25, Steven Kraines
> <ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>
> > <mailto:ste...@kraines.net <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>>

> > > <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > > > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> > > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>>
> > > >
> > > > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street,
> > Henley on
> > > > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > > > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT
> > No. GB 905
> > > > 6100 58
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> > > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> >
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpkkCyDZy2H7AP43jpgx-dQWaP6m9KPPL%3D%3D8hQ2ZJH9Dw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpkkCyDZy2H7AP43jpgx-dQWaP6m9KPPL%3D%3D8hQ2ZJH9Dw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 4, 2020, 10:51:54 AM8/4/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Everyone.

We need to get this document out, so could you please make sure you have any comments to the list or Chris by the end of the week.

Dear Chris,

Please find attached a copy with my comments on the above draft, mostly minor/editorial.

I think the conclusions could still do with a bit of work, they don’t somehow seem to pull things together. I suggested last time using a Venn diagram to illustrated the data in the spreadsheet. I’ve made a first go at this in the attached Powerpoint slide. I’ve used broader categories than the spreadsheet, but I think they are still useful in grouping the TLOs. I’ve put most of the Foundational TLOs on the diagram, which I think tells a story. It might be worth reviewing/revising that before thinking about the conclusions.

Regards

Matthew West

Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme

From: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chris Partridge

Sent: 30 July 2020 22:00
To: fdm ndt <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft

Hi,

Please find attached the latest draft of the TLO Survey and the Framework Assessment.

This incorporates comments from a number of reviews, some of them not submitted via this list. Can I thank everyone who contributed?

There are a couple of areas where (rather than an amendment) more research work is needed - these have been marked in the text with comments - they will be updated soon.

Going forward, could people please review this latest draft.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk

M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU

Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com.

Top Level Ontologies - Survey Paper - draft - 2020-07-30 MW.docx

TLO Categories.pptx

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 4, 2020, 10:53:24 AM8/4/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Top Level Ontologies - Survey Paper - draft - 2020-07-30 MW.docx

TLO Categories.pptx

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 4, 2020, 11:02:07 AM8/4/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Matthew,

Many thanks for the review - and extra thanks for the Venn diagram. This was on my to do list and I have tried a few things but not got something worth sharing yet - so your input will be really helpful.

I have three or four items that need to be finalised - I will make these high priority.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/003901d66a6e%248f027ca0%24ad0775e0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 4, 2020, 4:23:40 PM8/4/20

to fdm ndt

Hi,

I attach my responses to Steven. I have changed the subject line to help me keep track - as there are a number of responses in this thread.

Many thanks Steven for the comments, they were really useful. I have followed the protocol we agreed where you edit 'aggressively' and I pick and choose. I have also sometimes made the changes on the master and, to save time, not marked the details here. Let me know if this causes problems. Some comments that require more thought, I have added to my master, where I will deal with them.

There is a thread of comments that I would like to bring out - which deals with 'objects'. We plainly are not understanding one another on this. And I'm sure that other people will be having the same disconnect as you.

SK: Is there a difference between “ontology” and “ontology model”?

CP: Sure. The same as between a model and the thing that is being modelled!!!

There are examples of both ways of speaking in the literature. When the focus is on coding, people often call the code (the OWL) an ontology. When the focus is on interoperability, it makes more sense to acknowledge that the model/code is talking about something - the ontology. What is at issue here is when there are two models that commit to EXACTLY the same real world - do you want to say there are one or two ontologies. Surely you want to say one.

SK: Does this include axioms, datatype properties, etc.?

CP: As representations (as objects) or the objects they refer to? I suspect you mean representations.

If one does not scope one's ontology, then it will include the model of it you are working on. If your code contains axioms and datatypes - each instance of the code has inscriptions of them (so individuals). If there are multiple copies, then these will be types with instances in each copy. If the code is good, and that is what is intended, these will (hopefully) refer to objects. However, ontologising the model/code elements is not a trivial task.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 03:58, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net> wrote:

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the updated draft - this looks really good and
definitely fills a major gap in the current literature!

I have made a few comments and editorial suggestions
(mainly according to the quote by Thomas Jefferson :) ).
The biggest issue for me (and it might just be me) is
the terminology - in particular what is meant by "object".
Perhaps it would be useful to include the terms "object",
"material object", "type", "property", "model",
"architecture", "framework", etc. in the glossary?

As always, please treat all comments and edits as
(possibly naive) suggestions of a person trying to
get his head around all of the technical talk in the paper. :)

Best,

Steven

On 2020/07/31 5:59, Chris Partridge wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Please find attached the latest draft of the TLO Survey and the
> Framework Assessment.
>
> This incorporates comments from a number of reviews, some of them not
> submitted via this list. Can I thank everyone who contributed?
>
> There are a couple of areas where (rather than an amendment) more
> research work is needed - these have been marked in the text with
> comments - they will be updated soon.
>
> Going forward, could people please review this latest draft.
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
>
>

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |

> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>

> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>

>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.

Top Level Ontologies - Survey Paper - draft - 2020-07-30kraines.docx

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 5, 2020, 9:51:24 PM8/5/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi everyone,

This might be totally unrelated, but I had discussed with
Matthew about the possibility of using logically formalized
controlled natural languages such as ACE for creating
computer understandable descriptors of human knowledge.
So it might be interesting to include ACE in the TLO survey.

Here is the web site for ACE - I think that it is still being
maintained.

http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/site/

And here is a discussion by John Sowa that Matthew pointed me to:

http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/misc/ace.htm

Finally, this paper talks about how to apply ACE to
knowledge representation:

Attempto controlled english meets the challenges of knowledge
representation, reasoning, interoperability and user interfaces

http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/site/pubs/papers/FLAIRS0601FuchsN.pdf

Basically, I think that they are offering ACE as a "user-friendly"
alternative to OWL. However, the reasoner that they present
seems rather limited in comparison to DL reasoners such as Pellet.

Just a thought... :)
Steven

On 2020/08/04 23:50, matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk wrote:
> *Everyone*.

>
> We need to get this document out, so could you please make sure you have
> any comments to the list or Chris by the end of the week.
>
>
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> Please find attached a copy with my comments on the above draft, mostly
> minor/editorial.
>
> I think the conclusions could still do with a bit of work, they don’t
> somehow seem to pull things together. I suggested last time using a Venn
> diagram to illustrated the data in the spreadsheet. I’ve made a first go
> at this in the attached Powerpoint slide. I’ve used broader categories
> than the spreadsheet, but I think they are still useful in grouping the
> TLOs. I’ve put most of the Foundational TLOs on the diagram, which I
> think tells a story. It might be worth reviewing/revising that before
> thinking about the conclusions.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
>
> Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> *From:*uk-nd...@googlegroups.com <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Chris Partridge
> *Sent:* 30 July 2020 22:00
> *To:* fdm ndt <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft

>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Please find attached the latest draft of the TLO Survey and the
> Framework Assessment.
>
>
>
> This incorporates comments from a number of reviews, some of them not
> submitted via this list. Can I thank everyone who contributed?
>
>
>
> There are a couple of areas where (rather than an amendment) more
> research work is needed - these have been marked in the text with
> comments - they will be updated soon.
>
>
>
> Going forward, could people please review this latest draft.
>
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
>

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |

> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>

> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>

>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/003901d66a6e%248f027ca0%24ad0775e0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/003901d66a6e%248f027ca0%24ad0775e0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 6, 2020, 3:47:41 AM8/6/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Steven,
ACE is really a version of logic and not itself an ontology.
Regards
Matthew West

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/003901d66a6e%248f027ca0%24ad0775e0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/1c261ea5-b94c-034e-5e56-4910df997b77%40kraines.net.

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 6, 2020, 4:58:28 AM8/6/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Matthew,

Yes, I was aware of that. I figured that if you were considering
UML and OWL, it might be reasonable to include ACE.

Best,

Steven

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 6, 2020, 8:48:21 AM8/6/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Steven,
But OWL and UML have keywords like Thing and Type and Property that are its base ontology. I could not find any equivalent for ACE (I may have missed it) so it seems to be just a pure logic.
Regards
Matthew

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/26dc7643-8687-1bc8-27d8-76a2ac8567b7%40kraines.net.

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 6, 2020, 4:17:43 PM8/6/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Chris,

Hi Matthew,

Looking through the answers below, it seems to me that you have not presented any real arguments why types (or a specific kind of type - set) cannot, in principle, have properties such as mass and location.

[MW] I did not think you had presented any real arguments why they should.

"But a set of located things does seem to have a location, though perhaps a divided location: it is where its members are. Thus my unit set is right here, exactly where I am; the set of you and me is partly here where I am, partly yonder where you are; and so on."

“Things seeming to be located” strikes me as thin gruel as far as arguments go.

You document your approach (e.g The approach I have always taken ), but I cannot see anything that precludes another approach in principle.

[MW] Well lets see if we can do that a bit better here.

From a historical point of view, for example, Descartes introduced the 'way of ideas' (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ideas/) and "In writing An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Locke adopted Descartes’ ‘way of ideas’" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/. And the prime interesting property of these ideas were that they had the same properties as particulars - height, colour and so on (of course, one cannot see exact mass, though one could estimate it). And the problems arose when they did not - Locke noting that it was difficult to have an idea of the general triangle. So there is quite a precedent for types to have these properties. So one would need to explain why one's in principle argument somehow proved that this was impossible.

[MW] I’m not quite sure what you expected me to get from these articles, but here are two quotes (one from each).

As Descartes puts it later in the Principles, “shape is unintelligible except in an extended thing.” (AT VIIIA 25; CSM I 210) No extension, no shape. The same holds for the other class. The simple nature hot, a sensible quality, presupposes the simple nature thought or thinking in that the former is known (or understood) on the basis of the latter. No thought or thinking, no (feeling of) hotness.

[MW] This suggests to me that you have to have an extension to actually have physical properties.

Locke: In addition to the kinds of ideas noted above, there are also particular and abstract ideas. Particular ideas have in them the ideas of particular places and times which limit the application of the idea to a single individual, while abstract general ideas leave out the ideas of particular times and places in order to allow the idea to apply to other similar qualities or things.

[MW] And this seems to suggest that when you abstract from the particular to the general, particular times and places are lost.

So let me pick up on these themes. It seems to me that a supersubstantivalist requires that if something has mass it is a spatio-temporal extent. Similarly, to be located is to be a part of some spatio-temporal extent, and so must be a spatio-temporal extent. So if our set is to have a location or mass, it must be a spatio-temporal extent. Unfortunately, the one thing we know, and is least controversial about sets and spatio-temporal extents is that they are disjoint. So no set is also a spatio-temporal extent.

Perhaps there is another way in which a set can have mass. General Extensional Mereology provides a theorem that says for any collection of particulars, there is an aggregate that is the mereological sum of those particulars. So a satisfactory way to demonstrate mass or location for a set would be that there was a theorem of set theory that laid that out. However, I’m not aware of any such theorem.

There is one thing that is available, at least for mass. For any set of particulars, from the above GEM theorem, there will be an aggregate and it will have some mass. This can easily enough be related to the set concerned (there will of course be multiple sets for each aggregate). Of course it is the aggregate that has the mass, not the set, but if the primary motivation is grounding, I would have thought this sufficient. This also works as you look at sets of sets etc. Another option might be to consider Peter Simon’s multitudes which seems to be aimed to deliver exactly what you want from “The Ontology and Logic of Higher-Order Multitudes” Peter Simons:

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/handle/2262/75081

“Sets are abstract individuals: even if the elements of a set are concrete, the set is abstract. A multitude (with one class of exceptions to be noted below) is not an individual but precisely a many, and if its members are concrete, so is it. A multitude whose members are located is located where its members are; its location is the sum of the locations of its members; its causal powers are the sum of those of its members.”

[MW] So Peter seems clear sets are abstract, but makes this a reason to introduce multitudes (which provides it seems the theorem I was asking for above).

I suspect that a number of senses of abstract are being confused here.

[MW] Seemingly. There certainly seem to be more extreme ones than I intend.

It would be good if you said what sense you are using.

[MW] My sense is complement of particular/spatio-temporal extent.

Regards

Matthew West

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqD0%2BDh06qSgzh%2B%2BpA7unqm2fh-pDk2857hAoLyNiad2w%40mail.gmail.com.

Hugh Boyes

unread,

Aug 7, 2020, 4:54:48 AM8/7/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Matthew / Chris,

Please find attached the version that Matthew posted on 4^th August to which I have added some comments.

It is an impressive and potentially valuable survey. However, a key question is who are the intended readers of the document. If you view it from the context of someone which is interested in data modelling and the use of ontologies and taxonomies, but not an expert, then you present a lot of choices but few illustrations of the consequence of these choices. If this document is solely intended as a collation of ontologies for reference by experts then it serves that purpose. Alternatively if It is a reference document that can be used to explain to users of existing ontologies the need for the proposed TLO then illustrating the impact of the choices in section 5 would enable the limitations or constraints of existing ontologies to be explained.

Regards,

Hugh

——————————————
Hugh Boyes CEng FIET CISSP
Director
for and on behalf of Bodvoc Ltd

(M) 07970 703082

cid57E2BEA9-77B3-405C-90C4-ED40A8AC0CE1@bodvoc.co.uk

Cyber Essentials Plus Certificate Number CEP-4SE-09388

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.

From: <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of "matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk" <matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk>
Reply to: "uk-nd...@googlegroups.com" <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, 4 August 2020 at 15:53
To: "uk-nd...@googlegroups.com" <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft

Everyone.

We need to get this document out, so could you please make sure you have any comments to the list or Chris by the end of the week.

Dear Chris,

Please find attached a copy with my comments on the above draft, mostly minor/editorial.

I think the conclusions could still do with a bit of work, they don’t somehow seem to pull things together. I suggested last time using a Venn diagram to illustrated the data in the spreadsheet. I’ve made a first go at this in the attached Powerpoint slide. I’ve used broader categories than the spreadsheet, but I think they are still useful in grouping the TLOs. I’ve put most of the Foundational TLOs on the diagram, which I think tells a story. It might be worth reviewing/revising that before thinking about the conclusions.

Regards

Matthew West

Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme

From: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
Sent: 30 July 2020 22:00
To: fdm ndt <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft

Hi,

Please find attached the latest draft of the TLO Survey and the Framework Assessment.

This incorporates comments from a number of reviews, some of them not submitted via this list. Can I thank everyone who contributed?

There are a couple of areas where (rather than an amendment) more research work is needed - these have been marked in the text with comments - they will be updated soon.

Going forward, could people please review this latest draft.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Image removed by sender.

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/003f01d66a6e%24c4c80d00%244e582700%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

Top Level Ontologies - Survey Paper - draft - 2020-07-30 MW - HB.docx

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 7, 2020, 8:56:19 AM8/7/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Hugh,

Many thanks for this. I'll have a look and get the comments dealt with.

You raise important points about the consequences and the audience that I think need to be better understood.

As background (and I think this is mentioned in the introduction to the paper) we were asked to focus on a survey that could be used for a range of purposes - so not to assume a specific purpose, as the way forward for the FDM will be handled in a separate document. Also what consequences are interesting depends upon, to some extent, the selected purpose. So some of these are better picked up in the second document.

I think it is worth making a broad division of consequences into three kinds or levels.

At the first level there are the basic consequences of making the choice or not - whichever choice you make.

Appendix D, contains the TLO top level graphics which clearly show the enormous diversity of the structures. ( I agree with you that we should move some illustrations into the body of the text and there is a note to do this when I get time.)

The paper describes the framework and the spreadsheet shows how the diverse TLOs match up against this.

So we have tools that identify the choices and show the formal consequences of doing so on the ontological/data architecture (how these affect the shape and parsimony of the ontology) - so clearly showing making the choice has consequences - and so not making does.

And the consequences of not being clear about what choices have been made is stated - you end up with equivocation about the shape and parsimony - and this is not good for interoperability.

It seems to me that this is one of the most important 'consequences' - realising that there are these choices, that sometimes they are made explicitly, and that making them explicitly simplifies interoperability. I can see that it might get lost here in the eagerness to work out the specific choices for the FDM - but in the wider community we need to explain this,

Furthermore, the general classifications provide a useful tool for assessing how well the choices have been made.

If one requires interoperability (an assumption we were asked not to make in this paper) then one can use the general classifications to pick the more appropriate TLOs - ontological is better than generic - high ontological better than low.

At the second level, there are, what might be called, the 'internal' consequences of making one choice rather than the other. Here again, as far as we are able, we track how these affect the ontological/data architecture. For example, we categorize these in terms of parsimony, and so on. A data architect would be reasonably familiar with with this way of looking at structures - though not with the choices.

At the third level, one can ask about the pragmatic consequences that make a clear distinction between the choices, favouring one or other. Where, and I suspect this is what you were looking for, we say that this choice is better than that.

If only life was this simple.

One choice where this can be done to some extent is the criteria of identity - and I think that has been.

However, for the rest, a simplistic assessment is more tricky - and could easily undermine the authority of the report and its usefulness. What can be done in a responsible way is to indicate the second level differences, the structural differences - and this has been done, though I think it can be improved. With these, once you have a clear purpose, you often see the consequences for that purpose.

There are two broad problems here. The first, which is given some airtime in the paper, is the interaction between the choices. Those familiar with systems of systems will recognise the idea that the way the systems interact can have more impact than the individual systems.

The second is that the details of the choices can make a significant difference - and this is out of the scope of this broad overview. Given ontology's rich and ancient history, there are a large variety of approaches making it difficult to tie down things in a short report.

The next point is the audience.

Can I illustrate the issue with an analogy.

I attend a conference on measurement that has a range of disciplines attending. When I last went, I attended a series of workshops of the history of measurement. One theme that came up again and again was the problems in 'educating' practitioners in new developments. People were making great advances in land surveying in the 17th and 18th and the biggest problem was getting the practitioners to learn to use these. Similarly with the developments in electrical engineering in the 19th century. The age-old problem of getting new, different ideas into old heads.

You talk about "someone which is interested in data modelling and the use of ontologies and taxonomies, but not an expert ". It seems we have the same problem here. That without developing some understanding of the topics, it will be difficult to make sense or use of them. What is interesting is that in these historic examples, they ended up developing training schemes to help develop the practitioners understanding.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/963A362E-F3DF-455C-9CD9-9881D377813A%40bodvoc.com.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 7, 2020, 9:41:55 AM8/7/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Matthew,

I have changed the header as this is an extremely long thread - and does not need to be longer.

Thanks again for the comments.

I have followed the usual rules - minor changes made directly to the master.

Comments added where needed.

See attached.

I agree that we could work on the conclusions, especially visualising the results of the framework assessment.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 15:52, <matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/003901d66a6e%248f027ca0%24ad0775e0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

Top Level Ontologies - Survey Paper - draft - 2020-07-30 MW-CP.docx

A Luck Associates

unread,

Aug 7, 2020, 9:57:17 AM8/7/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Chris - by Monday, please could you send James and myself the master copy so that we can undertake the editorial review that needs to be conducted before it is released on the DT Hub/CDBB website.

All – please now reserve any further comments on this document until it has been ‘published’ for comment. We will confirm as soon as this is released and where it can be found!

Many thanks,

Alex

Alexandra Luck CEng, FICE, MCIHT, MCSFS

A Luck Associates

Mobile: +44 (0)7789 206422

www.aluckassociates.co.uk

From: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
Sent: 07 August 2020 14:41
To: fdm ndt <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft - Matthew

Hi Matthew,

I have changed the header as this is an extremely long thread - and does not need to be longer.

Thanks again for the comments.

I have followed the usual rules - minor changes made directly to the master.

Comments added where needed.

See attached.

I agree that we could work on the conclusions, especially visualising the results of the framework assessment.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Image removed by sender.

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 15:52, <matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk> wrote:

Everyone.

We need to get this document out, so could you please make sure you have any comments to the list or Chris by the end of the week.

Dear Chris,

Please find attached a copy with my comments on the above draft, mostly minor/editorial.

I think the conclusions could still do with a bit of work, they don’t somehow seem to pull things together. I suggested last time using a Venn diagram to illustrated the data in the spreadsheet. I’ve made a first go at this in the attached Powerpoint slide. I’ve used broader categories than the spreadsheet, but I think they are still useful in grouping the TLOs. I’ve put most of the Foundational TLOs on the diagram, which I think tells a story. It might be worth reviewing/revising that before thinking about the conclusions.

Regards

Matthew West

Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme

From: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
Sent: 30 July 2020 22:00
To: fdm ndt <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft

Hi,

Please find attached the latest draft of the TLO Survey and the Framework Assessment.

This incorporates comments from a number of reviews, some of them not submitted via this list. Can I thank everyone who contributed?

There are a couple of areas where (rather than an amendment) more research work is needed - these have been marked in the text with comments - they will be updated soon.

Going forward, could people please review this latest draft.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/003901d66a6e%248f027ca0%24ad0775e0%24%40informationjunction.co.uk.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRqceaco9MwoBZOkQDXir%3DyLjOPS8mc5S2CNBx02KdZU%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 7, 2020, 11:30:30 AM8/7/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Hugh,

I have processed the comments (see attached) many thanks again.

I have followed the same procedure as with the other drafts.

You make a very important point about the dependencies between the choices, that is probably worth bringing to the group's attention.

Hugh> Whilst section 5 describes a wide range of options/choices for ontology development, it is not clear whether we have a hierarchy of choices, where for example a general choice may be incompatible with or otherwise restrict other choices such as structure. Is there an optimum order in which the choices should be made? Alternative is would a decision tree help to illustrate constraints that are imposed by early choices?

The framework, as described, was focused on surveying existing TLOs. The three broad divisions - general, formal and universal - are probably a good way to undertake the analysis (or at least a review of the results). However, within these broad divisions, there are only the minor classification dependencies shown in the text and spreadsheet - see below.

There are limited dependencies between the choices and this is commented upon in a number of places in the paper - for example: "There is a limited inter-dependence between the choices meaning that a range of permutations are possible. For a top ontology, one can visualise the architectural stratification choices being adopted in a sequence starting with no stratifications and introducing the choices one or two at a time – as illustrated in the figures below. This sequence or journey is a rational reconstruction – the original development of the top ontology is most likely ad hoc and bottom up. However, this reconstruction gives us a good picture of the underlying architecture."

More generally, there is a common systems of systems problem where there are various softer or firmer mutual dependencies between choices (mostly noted) - but not enough to provide a reliable choice tree. Given the complexity of the topic, I think this should be expected. One purpose of the formal structure and stratification sections is to provide a clear delineation of the impact of the choices (in formal terms) - something that is quite tricky as people probably appreciate by now.

I'll make this even clearer.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

Top Level Ontologies - Survey Paper - draft - 2020-07-30 MW - HB - CPa.docx

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 7, 2020, 10:56:06 PM8/7/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris,

Just checking that you managed to process my comments from 7/31.
I would be happy to do another look through if it would
help - just point me to the latest version of the
manuscript!

> Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |

> www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>

> M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>

>
> BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> 6100 58
>
>
>

> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 03:58, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net

> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for the updated draft - this looks really good and
> definitely fills a major gap in the current literature!
>
> I have made a few comments and editorial suggestions
> (mainly according to the quote by Thomas Jefferson :) ).
> The biggest issue for me (and it might just be me) is
> the terminology - in particular what is meant by "object".
> Perhaps it would be useful to include the terms "object",
> "material object", "type", "property", "model",
> "architecture", "framework", etc. in the glossary?
>
> As always, please treat all comments and edits as
> (possibly naive) suggestions of a person trying to
> get his head around all of the technical talk in the paper. :)
>
> Best,
>
> Steven
>
> On 2020/07/31 5:59, Chris Partridge wrote:

> > Hi,
> >
> > Please find attached the latest draft of the TLO Survey and the
> > Framework Assessment.
> >
> > This incorporates comments from a number of reviews, some of them not
> > submitted via this list. Can I thank everyone who contributed?
> >
> > There are a couple of areas where (rather than an amendment) more
> > research work is needed - these have been marked in the text with
> > comments - they will be updated soon.
> >
> > Going forward, could people please review this latest draft.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris Partridge
> >
> >

> > Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |

> > www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>

> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>

> >
> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> > 6100 58
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com
> >

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

Chris Partridge

unread,

Aug 8, 2020, 4:21:45 AM8/8/20

to fdm ndt

Hi Steven,

It would not be a total surprise if I had missed them.

Is your version in this email?

From: Chris Partridge <partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 21:23
Subject: Re: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft - kraines
To: fdm ndt <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>

I have been adding the commenter's name as a suffix, so I can keep the comments threads separate. Maybe there are downsides doing this?

(I can share the current working copy of the manuscript if you wish - but it is in a state of flux.)

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk

M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/aaab8682-e652-2c7f-48a4-11dda66362e6%40kraines.net.

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 8, 2020, 6:09:49 AM8/8/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Steven,
The internal comment period has now finished, so Chris can process comments already submitted, but we are not looking for new ones at this stage. There will be an opportunity for that later.

Regards
Matthew West

-----Original Message-----

From: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Steven Kraines
Sent: 08 August 2020 03:56
To: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRrPA-oWNL0imTGp1E1MZkjFoCQk9pKC9%3DHt1_%3D_5sHgBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/aaab8682-e652-2c7f-48a4-11dda66362e6%40kraines.net.

Steven Kraines

unread,

Aug 8, 2020, 8:54:13 PM8/8/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Hi Chris,

Here are the responses to the responses.

> > There is a thread of comments that I would like to bring out - which
> > deals with 'objects'. We plainly are not understanding one
another on
> > this. And I'm sure that other people will be having the same
> disconnect
> > as you.

I do think that a glossary would help - a designated place in
the manuscript that people can refer to when they get confused
about how certain terms with multiple possible interpretations
are being used in this manuscript.

> > There are examples of both ways of speaking in the literature.
> When the
> > focus is on coding, people often call the code (the OWL) an
ontology.
> > When the focus is on interoperability, it makes more sense to
> > acknowledge that the model/code is talking about something - the
> > ontology. What is at issue here is when there are two models that
> > commit to EXACTLY the same real world - do you want to say there
> are one
> > or two ontologies. Surely you want to say one.

Ummm - I might be missing something, but surely you can have
two different models of the same real world thing (object)?
Two models that have the same code would be the same, I guess,
but even two models that use the same simplifying assumptions
if implemented differently need to be treated as different
models, don't they?

> > /SK: Does this include axioms, datatype properties, etc.?/
> > /CP: As representations (as objects) or the objects they refer to? I
> > suspect you mean representations./

> > If one does not scope one's ontology, then it will include the
> model of
> > it you are working on. If your code contains axioms and datatypes
> - each
> > instance of the code has inscriptions of them (so individuals). If
> there
> > are multiple copies, then these will be types with instances in each
> > copy. If the code is good, and that is what is intended, these will
> > (hopefully) refer to objects. However, ontologising the model/code
> > elements is not a trivial task.

Same with programming - you can implement the same process
using simple code or complex code, and usually the simple
code is preferred, right?

Steven

On 2020/08/08 22:00, Chris Partridge wrote:
> cool.
>
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 13:55, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net

> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>

> This is it! I'm really glad that it did not get lost in
> the shuffle. I will respond to your responses by tomorrow
> (hopefully).
>
> Best,
>
> Steven
>
> On 2020/08/08 19:32, Chris Partridge wrote:

> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: *Chris Partridge* <partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>

> > Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020, 21:23
> > Subject: Re: [FDM] [FDM-TLO] TLO Survey 2020-07-30 draft - kraines
> > To: fdm ndt <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-nd...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>>>

> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I attach my responses to Steven. I have changed the subject line
> to help
> > me keep track - as there are a number of responses in this thread.
> >
> > Many thanks Steven for the comments, they were really useful. I have
> > followed the protocol we agreed where you edit 'aggressively' and
> I pick
> > and choose. I have also sometimes made the changes on the master
> and, to
> > save time, not marked the details here. Let me know if this causes
> > problems. Some comments that require more thought, I have added to my
> > master, where I will deal with them.
> >
> > There is a thread of comments that I would like to bring out - which
> > deals with 'objects'. We plainly are not understanding one another on
> > this. And I'm sure that other people will be having the same
> disconnect
> > as you.
> >

> > /SK: Is there a difference between “ontology” and “ontology model”?/
> > /CP: Sure. The same as between a model and the thing that is being
> > modelled!!!/

> > There are examples of both ways of speaking in the literature.
> When the
> > focus is on coding, people often call the code (the OWL) an ontology.
> > When the focus is on interoperability, it makes more sense to
> > acknowledge that the model/code is talking about something - the
> > ontology. What is at issue here is when there are two models that
> > commit to EXACTLY the same real world - do you want to say there
> are one
> > or two ontologies. Surely you want to say one.
> >

> > /SK: Does this include axioms, datatype properties, etc.?/
> > /CP: As representations (as objects) or the objects they refer to? I
> > suspect you mean representations./

> > If one does not scope one's ontology, then it will include the
> model of
> > it you are working on. If your code contains axioms and datatypes
> - each
> > instance of the code has inscriptions of them (so individuals). If
> there
> > are multiple copies, then these will be types with instances in each
> > copy. If the code is good, and that is what is intended, these will
> > (hopefully) refer to objects. However, ontologising the model/code
> > elements is not a trivial task.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris Partridge
> >
> >

> > Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited |
> > www.BOROSolutions.co.uk <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>

> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> >
> > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on
> > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905
> > 6100 58
> >
> >
> >

> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 03:58, Steven Kraines <ste...@kraines.net

> <mailto:ste...@kraines.net>

> <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>

> > <http://www.BOROSolutions.co.uk>
> > > M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>

> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk
> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>
> > > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>
> > <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk

> <mailto:partr...@borogroup.co.uk>>>
> > >
> > > BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street,
> Henley on
> > > Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
> > > Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT
> No. GB 905
> > > 6100 58
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> > > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it, send
> > > an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> > > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>>.

> > > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com
> > >
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/CA%2B8EkRpz%3DOVU0dWNGnY78R08MMvp%3Dzq0QWhgBru%2BWiARpyNEFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

> > send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>.

> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/999c4afb-4d3c-0a19-923a-c9775d8ef9d4%40kraines.net.
> >
>

Top Level Ontologies - Survey Paper - draft - 2020-07-30krainesResponse.docx

matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk

unread,

Aug 9, 2020, 4:11:53 AM8/9/20

to uk-nd...@googlegroups.com

Dear Rob,

Hi all,

Following the conversation with interest, as a comment I would suggest Chris's final paragraph cuts to the chase.

So I suggest we need to articulate what the candidate terms are, especially the standard terms of art (as decided by the experts in the area) and then the reasons for selecting one.

And I cannot see how we can avoid this by claiming that a particular notional audience will not 'resonate', so we need a new, different term.

My understanding is that the purpose of the FDM is to provide a solid logical basis for enabling interoperability, a separate requirement from "resonating" to audiences, the bulk of which is more likely to to take place within the necessary interpretation and application to already existing and disparate domains, disciplines, industry or peer data models etc.

[MW] It goes without saying (I hope) that the FDM needs to do what you say here. However, my experience is that this is not enough. ISO 15926-2 already does this (as do some of the other candidate TLOs). However, in practice we have found that it has been frequently misunderstood, and therefore either ignored, or even occasionally misused. This does not take the cause forward. So there is an additional requirement (not an instead of) that our FDM must speak to those who will be using it, meaning it must be straightforward to understand and difficult to misinterpret.