Re: A DAML Spatial Ontology

From: Jerry Hobbs (hobbs@ISI.EDU)
Date: 03/11/03

  • Next message: Jerry Hobbs: "Re: A DAML Spatial Ontology"
    > A number of people working on space and time, particularly 
    > in reference to geographical processes, have advocated a 
    > four-dimensional ontology based on space-time chunks. I 
    > think there may be something to be said for this approach 
    > in some situations, particular when modelling complex 
    > phenomena that simultaneously manifest both object-like and
    > process-like aspects, depending on how they are viewed 
    > (e.g., a hurricane can be tracked like a moving object in 
    > satellite images, but from the point of view of someone on 
    > the ground, in its path, it's more like an event - so it 
    > might be useful to have an underlying representation from 
    > which both these cases arise as different projection, as it 
    > were). In order to take this view of the phenomena, one 
    > presumably also needs an integrated 4D ontology of 
    > spatio-temporal locations - so alongside your two lists for 
    > Space and Time, there could be a third list, for 
    > Space-Time. (Some enthusiasts for this point of view would 
    > say that the third list should *replace* the first two, but 
    > more conservatively we might at least want it co-existing 
    > with them - though of course that also implies that we need 
    > to sort out the relationships between elements in the 
    > Space-Time list and corresponding elements in the other two 
    > lists ...)
    I'm not one of those enthusiasts.  You'd hate to be saddled with a
    space-time ontology if all you are doing is a calendaring tool.
    But your suggestion is a good one.  It is probably a good desideratum
    to keep in mind in doing a space ontology that it should support a
    space-time ontology as well, in some sense of "support".
    -- Jerry

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/11/03 EST