From: Drew McDermott ([email protected])
Date: 10/31/02
[Me] >1) Yoav Shoham worked out an exhaustive taxonomy of eventuality types > as part of his Ph.D. work. Different types behave differently with > regard to whether holding over an interval implies holding at each > instant of the interval, and other such distinctions. I'm not sure > where to find the taxonomy, but we could ask Yoav. [Pat] Obviously I havn't been tracking this stuff closely enough. I would be very unhappy if daml-time requires us to swallow an ontology of 'eventualities'. Seems to me that there is no need to ever introduce eventualities in a well-designed ontology; they are just the sentences that are true at a time, and if one writes things properly then they can stay being sentences. In spite of intense philosophical meditation, I have been unable to disambiguate your proposal. Can you clarify? For instance, does a sentence's being true "at a time" cover the case where the time is an interval? Do you intend to reify sentences or to make the time be an extra argument to temporal predicates? In any case, daml-time can remain independent of any ontology of eventualities, if some people decide they want one, or more than one. -- Drew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 10/31/02 EST