SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyal reality are characterized by their static character. GIS representations are representations of the world at a given time, reflecting the fact that geographic information systems have their roots in printed maps. Yet, geographical reality, like all other domains of reality, is essentially dynamic SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology. We here outline a theory that Is designed to pieserve what is of value In current representation schemas while addressing the need for dynamics. OurSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
position is that a good ontology must be capable of accounting for reality both synchronically (as it exists at a time) and diachronically (as it unf1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology venture between the so-called three-dlmenslonalist and four-dimensionallst peispectives current In contemporary philosophical ontology. Briefly, we shall propose a modular formal ontology with two components, one for geographic objects and one for geographic processes.1. IntroductionReality is desc SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyribed in the first place by means of natural language. But natural language is of course not without its defects as a tool for description. In order tSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
o understand and safeguard against such defects we need a standard of correctness, some ground for speaking about reality - which means a theoretical 1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyide. Ontology in this sense concerns itself with the question of what there is. Il purports to produce an account of the token entities existing in the world, of the types or categories under which these entities fall, and of the different sorts of relations which hold between them.This philosophica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyl task of working out the types and relationships among entities must of course at some point join up with the work of scientists. The full task of onSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
tology is then a matter of going back and forth between the formulation of philosophical theories on the one hand and the testing of such theories aga1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyical language. Such a theory' typically includes a taxonomy of categories with1 This work was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation under the auspices OÍ its Wolfgang Paul Program and also by the National Science Foundation Grant BCS-997S5S7: Geographic Categories: An Ontological Invest SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyigation.https://khothuvien.cori!2accompanying axioms and definitions. The virtue of formalization is first of all that of enforcing a certain degree oSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
f clarity. Another virtue is that it makes theories readily accessible, evaluable, and re-usable by other communities of researchers. Additionally, fo1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyfended in (Smith, 2003) and (Grenon, 2003a), is realist, perspectivalist, fallibilist, and adequatist. Realism asserts that reality and its constituents exist independently of our (linguistic, conceptual, theoretical, cultural) representations thereof. Perspectivalism maintains that there may be alt SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyernative, equally legitimate perspectives on this reality. Perspectivalism is then constrained by realism: thus it does not amount to the thesis thatSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
just any view of reality is legitimate. To establish which views are legitimate we must weigh them against their ability to survive critical tests whe1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyowever in a way that is always subject to further correction. It is a fact that sciences change with time, and thus everything that is said here must be understood against the background of fallibUism, which accepts that both theories and classifications can be subject to revision. Adequaiism, final SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyly, is the negation of reductionist!! in philosophy. The reductionist affirms that, among the plurality of alternative views of reality there is someSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
one basic view to which all the others can be reduced. We, in contrast, affirm that there are many views of reality, all of which are equally veridica1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyevels of granularity (microscopic, mesoscopic, geographic). Adequatism is the doctrine that a plurality of such views is needed if we are to do justice to reality as a whole.An adequatist approach to ontology with ambitions to remain consistent with science will need to be very cautious in sorting o SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyut the needed repertoire of mutually complementary perspectives. One perspective might accept as an unchallenged truth the reality of this cup or thatSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
chair. Another might seek to do justice to the very same reality in terms of aggregates of atoms or molecules. A third might talk in terms of changes1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyre is no privileged approach which could justify the reduction of one to another. Adequatism allows US to embrace simultaneously both commonsensical and scientific realism, that is: it allows US to endorse the view that both common sense and science can grant US genuine knowledge of the world.3t-orm SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyal and Material Ontology. It was Husserl in his Logical investigations (1913/21) who first drew a clear distinction between two kinds of ontological iSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
nquiry. On the one hand is what he called formal ontology, which is a theory al the highest and most domain-neutral level. Formal ontology deals with 1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologye additions 01 subtractions in specific domains or levels). Examples of such categories include: object, relation, group, number, pan-of, identical-to. On die other hand are what Husserl called material or regional ontologies, which ate the ontologies of specific domains. There are as many ontologie SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologys in this sense as there are subject matters or domains of inquiry. Examples of suc h domains were for Husserl the domain of spac e, lime and physicalSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
things; the domain of organisms; the domain of mind; and the domain of societies.1.1 Basic Formal OntologyBasic Formal Ontology (BFO) is a theory of 1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyity of Leipzig. BFO is a formal ontology in the sense of Husserl and its construction follows the methodological maxims presented above. The enterprise of building BFO is thus motivated on the one hand by the desire to be truthful to reality, and on the other hand by the need to accept a multiplicit SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyy of perspectives upon reality which may be skew to each other. IFOMIS and its associates are developing a series of material or regional ontologies,SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
including: MedO (for Medical Ontology), GeO (for Geographical Ontology), and DisReO (for Disaster Relief Ontology). As a formal ontology BFO selves as1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyes of Being. The central dichotomy among the perspectives represented in BFO concerns the modes of existence in lime of the enlilies populating lhe world. BFO endorses first ol all a view according lo which there are entities in the world lhal have continuous existence and a capacity to endure (pers SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyist sclf-identically) through change. (Here we will use the terms ‘continuant’ and ‘endurant’ interchangeably.) These entities come in several kinds.SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
Examples are: you, the planet Earth, a piece of rock: but also: your suntan, a rabbit-hole. Leeds. All of diese entities exist in full in any instant 1SNAP and SPAN:Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology*Pierre Grenon and Barry SmithAbstractCurrent approaches to the formal representation of geographica SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologytoday as you were yesterday and as you will be tomorrow.4In addition, however, BFO endorses a view according to which the world contains occurrents, more familiarly referred to as processes, events, activities, changes. Occurrents include: your smiling, her walking, the landing of an aircraft, the p SNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontologyassage of a rainstorm over a forest, the rotting of fallen leaves. These entities are four-dimensional. They occur in time and they unfold themselvesSNAP and SPAN Prolegomenon to Geodynamic Ontology
through a period of time.Occurrents are all bound in time in the way described by Zemach (1970). This means that each portion of the time during whichGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook