Modal logic (couldBe, willBe, etc), conceptual drift, a lot of the things
you mention here are indeed important to the work of an OHS-like
system. These notions bring to mind the need for what is called
non-monotonic reasoning capability (the ability to backtrack when some fact
changes), and version control -- keeping pointers aligned to appropriate
versions, updating pointers, and so forth. All topics for research,
discussion, and experimentation.
At 05:13 AM 4/1/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>... A quick thought after reviewing the introduction (wish I had time to
>read the full text of all the great articles and papers out there, there's
>just so much info and so little time... sigh)
>Many of the approaches to building ontologies seem to be fixated on a
>'present-tense' description of the nature of things. For instance, his
>graph showing the associationg 'cow gives meat' is not really an accurate
>association, in the sense that no cow (at least none that I know)
>willingly 'give' meat, but the process involves an actual _change_ in the
>nature of the cow. It may be more accurate to say that 'cow + slaughter =
>meat' which is an entirely different relationship, in which the action
>changes the graph entirely by (possibly) reclassifying the cow under the
>relation of 'is-a animal' to 'is food'.
>The issue here obviously is not the slaughter of cows, but how do we
>express the principles by which an entity changes as it is manipulated
>over time? Take for example the association, 'house is red'. But if the
>house is painted, this causes a change in the attribute of the house's
>color form red to, say, green.
>If we have the concept of building knowledge bases with an "SDS-like"
>system as a front end for entering new knowledge, the change of the
>knowledge content over time is an integral part of the system... How do we
>record the relations of cause and effect between actions which have been
>taken over time and the changes in attributes and classifications of the
>entites within the system? It seems this might be integrally bound up
>with some sort of versioning or history within the topic-mapping of the
>It seems there is a lot of interest in topic maps and RDF type
>descriptions for present tense description of the nature of things, but do
>these mechanisms adequately address the integration of history, preserving
>the cause-and-effect which changes the nature of the reality these things
>Just wondering what folks out there are thinking -- (btw, thanks to
>everybody on this list for all the fantastic food for thought over the few
>months i've been lurking)
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify email@example.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption!
Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide,
"Securing Your Web site for Business." Get it now!
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 08:21:21 PDT