1 BFO and GOL Ontological theory vs. ontology language GOL as an ontology representation language...
-
Upload
agatha-dennis -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
description
Transcript of 1 BFO and GOL Ontological theory vs. ontology language GOL as an ontology representation language...
1
BFO and GOL
Ontological theory vs. ontology languageGOL as an ontology representation
language analogous to KIF (thus maximally eclectic)BFO as an ontological theory of reality
designed as a real constraint on domain ontologies
2
A Network of Domain Ontologies
Material (Regional) Ontologies
Basic Formal Ontology
3
A Network of Domain Ontologies
BFO
4
A Network of Domain Ontologies
ChemO
BFO
5
A Network of Domain Ontologies
MedO
ChemO
BFO
6
Nouns and verbs
Substances and processesContinuants and occurrents
In preparing an inventory of realitywe keep track of these two different categories of entities in two different ways
7
Natural languageglues them together indiscriminately
substance
t i m
e
process
8
Snapshot vs. Video
substance
t i m
e
process
9
Substances
Mesoscopic reality is divided at its natural joints into substances: animals, bones, rocks, potatoes
10
The Ontology of Substances
Substances form natural kinds (universals, species + genera)
11
Not only substances exist in toto at any time at which they exist at
allthe same holds of qualities, and of roles, functions, powers,
dispositions – each of these has executions (processes)
12
Processes
t i m e
13
ProcessesProcesses merge into one anotherProcess kinds merge into one another
… few clean joints either between instances or between types
14
Some clean jointsderive from the fact that processes are dependent on substances(my headache is cleanly demarcated from your headache)
15
Some clean jointsin realms of artefactual processes:
weddingschess gamesdog showsontology tutorialssharp divisions imputed via clocks, calendars
16
Clean jointsalso through language= fiat demarcations
Quinean gerrymandering ontologies are attractive for processesnot for substancesQuine: there are no substances
17
Substances and processes
t i m
e
process
demand different sorts of inventories
18
Substances demand 3-D partonomies
space
19
Processes demand 4D-partonomies
t i m e
20
Processes have temporal partsThe first 5 minutes of my headache is a temporal part of my headacheThe first game of the match is a temporal part of the whole match
21
Substances do not have temporal parts
The first 5-minute phase of my existence is not a temporal part of me It is a temporal part of that complex process which is my life
22
Qualities, Roles, Functions, Powers, Dispositions
Do not have temporal parts
They belong to the SNAP ontology
23
How do we glue these two different sorts of entities together mereologically?How do we include them both in a single inventory of reality
24
How do we fit these two entities together within a single system of representations?within a directly depicting language?
25
You are a substanceYour life is a process
You are 3-dimensionalYour life is 4-dimensional
26
Substances and processes form two distinct orders of being
Substances exist as a whole at every point in time at which they exist at allProcesses unfold through time, and are never present in full at any given instant during which they exist.
When do both exist to be inventoried together?
27
1. Four-dimensionalism
All entities are spatio-temporally extended portions of an atemporal four-dimensional whole called reality
Problems:substances (e.g. people) do not existchange does not exist
28
2. Presentism
Both substances and processes exist, but only what exists now exists at all.
Problem:‘Napoleon ruled before Clinton’
29
Neither of these solutions is completely adequate
Hencea good formal ontology must somehow contain them both
30
A good formal ontologymust divide into two sub-ontologies:1. a four-dimensionalist ontology (of
processes) SPANcf. Quine2. a modified presentist ontology cf. Brentano, Aristotle, Chisholm(takes tense seriously) SNAP
31
These represent two viewsof the same rich and messy reality, the reality captured promiscuously by TEE
32
The SPAN Ontology
t i m e
33
boundaries are mostly fiat
t i m e
everything is flux
34
mereology works without restriction everywhere here
t i m e
clinical trial
35
here time exists as part of the domain of the ontology
36
The SNAP Ontologies
t1
t3
t2
here time exists outside the ontology, as an index or time-stamp
37
mereology works without restriction in every instantaneous 3-D section through
reality
38
Three views/partitions of the same reality
39
all contain huge amounts of knowledge of this reality
against Kant
40
The Time-Stamped (3-D) Ontology
t1
t3
t2
41
each section through reality is to be conceived in presentist terms
each section includes everything which existsat the corresponding now
42
Not in a SubjectSubstantial
In a SubjectAccidental
Said of a SubjectUniversal, General,Type
Second Substances
man, horse, mammal
Non-substantial Universals
whiteness, knowledge
Not said of a Subject Particular, Individual,Token
First Substances
this individual man, this horse this mind, this body
Individual Accidents
this individual whiteness, knowledge of grammar
43
Aristotle’s Ontological SquareSubstantial Accidental
Second substance man cat ox
Second accident headache sun-tan dread
First substance this man this cat this ox
First accident this headache this sun-tan this dread
Uni
vers
alP
artic
ular
44
Aristotle’s Ontological SquareSubstantial Accidental
Second substance man cat ox
Second accident headache sun-tan dread
First substance this man this cat this ox
First accident this headache this sun-tan this dread
Uni
vers
alP
artic
ular
45
Aristotle’s Ontological SquareSubstantial Accidental
Second substance man cat ox
Second accident headache sun-tan dread
First substance this man this cat this ox
First accident this headache this sun-tan this dread
Uni
vers
alP
artic
ular
46
Aristotle’s Ontological SquareSubstantial Accidental
Second substance man cat ox
Second accident headache sun-tan dread
First substance this man this cat this ox
First accident this headache this sun-tan this dread
Uni
vers
alP
artic
ular
47
Aristotle’s Ontological SquareSubstantial Accidental
Second substance man cat ox
Second accident headache sun-tan dread
First substance this man this cat this ox
First accident this headache this sun-tan this dread
Uni
vers
alP
artic
ular
48
Refining the Ontological SquareSubstantial Accidental
Second substance man cat ox
Second accident headache sun-tan dread
First substance this man this cat this ox
First accident this headache this sun-tan this dread
Uni
vers
alP
artic
ular
49
Refining the Ontological SquareSubstantial Dependent Entities
Exercise of power Exercise of functionMovementAction
SubstancesCollectivesUndetached partsSubstantial boundaries
PowersFunctionsQualitiesShapes
Occ
urre
nts
Con
tinua
nts
50
Refining the Ontological SquareSubstantial Dependent
Exercise of power Exercise of functionMovementAction
SubstancesCollectivesUndetached partsSubstantial boundaries
PowersFunctionsQualitiesShapes
Occ
urre
nts
Con
tinua
nts
51
Refining the Ontological SquareSubstantial Dependent Entities
The big bang???? Exercise of power Exercise of functionMovementAction Processes
SubstancesCollectivesUndetached partsSubstantial boundaries
PowersFunctionsQualitiesShapes
Occ
urre
nts
Con
tinua
nts
52
Refining the Ontological SquareSubstantial Dependent Entities
John‘s reddeningJohn‘s blushingJohn‘s bruising
SPANSubstancesCollectivesUndetached partsSubstantial boundaries
John‘s rednessJohn‘s blushJohn‘s bruise
SNAP
Occ
urre
nts
Con
tinua
nts
53
Refining the Ontological SquareSubstantial Dependent Entities
John‘s reddeningJohn‘s blushingJohn‘s bruising
SPAN (perduring)
Stuff(Blood, Snow, Tissue)MixturesHoles
John‘s rednessJohn‘s blushJohn‘s bruise
SNAP (enduring)
Occ
urre
nts
Con
tinua
nts
54
A Refined Ontological SquareSubstantial Dependent Entities
John‘s reddeningJohn‘s professorshipMy knowledge of French
SPAN (perduring)Stuff(Blood, Snow, Tissue)MixturesHoles
John‘s rednessJohn‘s blushJohn‘s bruise
SNAP (enduring)
Occ
urre
nts
Con
tinua
nts
55
Species-genusgenus trees can be represented also as map-like partitions
56
From Species to Genera
canary
animal
bird
57
From Species to Genera
animal
bird
canarycanary
58
Species Genera as Tree
canary
animal
bird fish
ostrich
59
Species-Genera as Map/Partition
animal
bird
canary
ostrich
fish
canary
60
Tree and Map-Partitions Together
61
‘Granularity’ in two senses:depth of a tree hierarchy
resolution of a map-like partition
62
There are many different species-genus hierarchies
many different ways to cut through the complex thicket of invariant patterns in reality
63
Recall the distinct temporal partitions of reality as a whole
64
Coarse-grained Partition
65
Fine-Grained Partition
66
Basic Formal Ontology
??
?
67
Ontological Zooming
68
Universe/Periodic Tableanimal
bird
canaryostrich
fishfolk biology
partition of DNA space
69
Universe/Periodic Tableanimal
bird
canaryostrich
fish
both are transparent partitions of one and the same reality
70
France
RegionsDepartments
71
Perspectivalism
Perspectivalism
Different partitions may represent cuts through the same reality which are skew to each other
72
An organism is a totality of molecules
An organism is a totality of cells
An organism is a single unitary substance
... all of these express veridical partitions
An organism is a totality of atoms
73
all express partitions which are transparent,
at different levels of granularity, to the same reality beyond
74
Ontologylike cartographymust work with maps at different scales
and with maps picking out different dimensions of invariants
75
76
If Aristotelian realism is rightthen there are very many map-like partitions, at different scales,which are all transparent
to the reality beyond
the mistake arises when one supposesthat only one of these partitions is veridical
77
There are not only map-like partitions of reality into spatial chunks
but also distinct partitions of reality into universals
-- mutually compatible ways of providing inventories of universals(among proteins, among cells, among organisms …)
78
Varieties of granular partitionsPartonomies: inventories of the parts of
individual entitiesMaps: partonomies of spaceTaxonomies: inventories of the
universals covering a given domain of reality
79
Periodic TablePeriodic Table of Chemical Elements
80
Many partitions are transparent to reality
TEE is a ragbag of skew partitions, some of them transparentOne job of the ontological realist is to understand how different partitions of the same reality interrelate-- notion of projection
81
Contrast this with ‘knowledge representation’
82
problem of ‘knowledge representation’
83
problem of ‘knowledge representation’ solved
by looking at the world
84
How solve the problem?Ontology as maximally opportunistictheory of reality(not of ‘knowledge’)-- address the same reality at
different granularities
85
Maximally opportunisticmeans:don’t just look at beliefslook at the objects themselvesfrom every possible direction, formal and
informal, scientific and non-scientific…
86
BFO/MedO:
Basic Formal Ontology and Medical Ontology
Draft 0.0005 (25.6.02)
87
Basic Formal Ontologyconsists in a series of sub-ontologies (most properly conceived as a series of perspectives on reality), the most important of which are:
88
Basic Formal OntologySnapBFO, a series of snapshot ontologies (Oti ), indexed by timesSpanBFO a single videoscopic ontology (Ov).
89
SNAP and SPANEach Oti is an inventory of all entities existing at a time. Ov is an inventory (processory) of all processes unfolding through time. (Each Oti is thus analogous to anatomy; Ov is analogous to physiology.)
90
SNAP and SPAN
Each snapshot ontology represents a presentistic assay of the entities existing at some given present instant. Ov is a (God’s eye) partition of the totality of processes.
91
Both SnapBFO and SpanBFO will serve as basis for a series of sub-ontologies at different levels of granularity.
The same portion of reality may appear at a plurality of levels of granularity. Thus masses at one level may be aggregates at another level.
What counts as a unitary process at one level may be part of a process-continuum at another level.
Granularity
92
BFO applied to Medicine
What follows is a preliminary taxonomic tree (inspired in part by LADSEB work)examples of medical entities are indicated in green as a first step towards expanding BFO to MedO
93
SNAP: Entities existing in toto at a time
94
95
96
SNAP
97
SPAN: Entities extended in time
SPANEntity extended in time
Portion of Spacetime
Fiat part of process *First phase of a clinical trial
Spacetime worm of 3 + Tdimensions
occupied by life of organism
Temporal interval *projection of organism’s life
onto temporal dimension
Aggregate of processes *Clinical trial
Process[±Relational]
Circulation of blood,secretion of hormones,course of disease, life
Processual Entity[Exists in space and time, unfolds
in time phase by phase]
Temporal boundary ofprocess *
onset of disease, death
98
SPAN: Entities extended in time
99
SPAN: Entities extended in time
100
Each ontology above represents some partition of reality into categories or universals. Individual instances (tokens) are to be conceived as being located in cells of the diagrams.
101
The ontologies here indicated are partial only (they are windows on just that portion of reality which is visible through the given ontology).
102
Double-Counting
A cell labeled * within a given ontology represents a category division which involves some double-counting in relation to the categories within the same ontology represented by cells not so labeled.
103
For example here
104
Spatial RegionsThe spatial regions acknowledged by SnapBFO are, on the mesoscopic level of granularity, the sorts of domesticated spatial regions referred to by expressions such as:‘in the room’, ‘in the lung’, ‘on the table’, ‘in Poland’ etc. (Thus they are not the abstract spatial regions investigated by physics.)
105
106
Free and bound portions of space
Free portions of space are spatial regions of the same (domesticated) kind but with no physical boundaries or retainers (such as walls, floor, ceiling). Bound portions of space can be bound either completely, as in the case of a closed room or an air-bubble inside your body, or partially, as in the case of a birdcage or nostril.
107
Free and bound portions of space
Both free and bound portions of space retain their identity from one instant to the next even though they are projected in succession onto distinct abstract spatial regions in the physicist’s sense (just as substances retain their identity from one instant to the next even though they are projected in succession on distinct aggregates of molecules).
108
Behavior SettingsThe spatiotemporal regions acknowledged by SpanBFO are similarly regions determined by domesticated portions of space over (for example) clock or calendar time. They are the spatiotemporal regions occupied by behavior settings in Roger Barker’s sense (the 5pm train to Long Island, the early morning swim, your meeting with the Dean).
109
SPAN: Entities extended in time
110
Relational Dependent Entities
Dependent entities, both within the SNAP and within the SPAN ontologies, are divided into:relational (for entities dependent on a plurality of entities) and non-relational (for entities dependent on a single entity).
111
ProblemsHow are entities visible in the SPAN ontology
related to entities visible in the SNAP ontologies (e.g. via dependence, participation, initiation, sustaining in being,etc.)
How are entities visible in ontologies at different levels of granularity related to each other (most importantly: as part to whole)