Dear All,
In support of Robert:
Thomas Gruber in his paper foundational to ontology engineering "Toward
Principles for the Design of Ontologies
Used for Knowledge Sharing" Revision: August 23, 1993 discusses this
issue. We follow in a way his arguments, adding however the problem of a
reality with fuzzy dimensions and limited capabilities of observation.
Since we want to compare values with respect to a common reality, the
exact mathematical magnitude is irrelevant for our
reasoning. I.e. , questions can be: Is this the same object?, Has this
object changed? Would it fit into another one? The answer to these
questions can only be given if the dimension is that of the object at
some time, and the value an approximation.
The monetary value on the other side, represents the agreed-on
obligation of the receiver to the giver, created by the acquisition of
the object, regardless being paid or not. As such, it is different from
any other monetary amount, being by incident 100$ as well. If we extend
the model in the future assigning such properties to the monetary
amount, which then acquires a history of its own, another interpretation
is incompatible. The identity of the abstract amount of being 100$, has
to my understanding no reasonable use beyond being just what has been
encoded.
The question in ontology engineering is not what sense we can give, but
what are the minimal senses we need to answer reasonable questions in
the discourse we target at.
Best,
Martin
On 18/1/2017 6:53 μμ, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Hi Simon,
I agree with you completely :) 40 yards is a length, 5.28 seconds is a
duration, 1 million USD is a value. In which case, there need only be ever one
URI that is the identity for the length “40 yards” or the value “1 million
USD”. However, if you say that 40 yards is actually a height in some instances,
and a width in others, now it is specific to a particular orientation of a
particular object and you need different identities for each Dimension /
Monetary Amount.
Hence, given Martin’s statement that height is a p2_has_type addition to a
Dimension, I could equivalently have Types of Starting Price, Hammer Price,
Estimated Price, Paid Amount and so on in the Auction use case. Making those
Monetary Amounts tied exclusively to the Auction. And hence my assertion that
this is not “just” an implementation detail, but an ontological design choice.
Rob
On 1/18/17, 8:45 AM, "Simon Spero" <sesunc...@gmail.com> wrote:
It makes a difference *to the model* for the relationship between Linguistic Objects and Monetary Amounts. For example, if the researchers for a particular sale conclude from a newspaper article
that the final auction hammer price was $1M for the painting, is it that
the Linguistic Object refers to the Monetary Amount as the generic face value
of any old million dollars, or is it explicitly the million dollars that was
the sale price?
I find it difficult to interpret the use of the term 'price' as referring to anything other than a dimensioned value, rather than a specific payment event involving the transfer of some specific assets.
It's analogous to a report stating that Tom Brady has a 40 yard dash time of 5.28 seconds, but Ben Roethlisberger has a 40 yard dash time of 4.75 seconds. Although, because these are the results of measurements, we can infer
the existence of two specific intervals of time, and two specific patches
of ground, this is irrelevant to the report.
Also, suppose that instead of a hammer price of $1M, there had been a reserve price of $2M, and the highest bid was $1M.
Then consider the counterfactual sentence "Had the reserve price not been $2M,
the hammer price would have been $1M."...
Is it possible to compare the hypothetical hammer price to the reserve price? Does this require an implicit conversion between two radically different things?
In the original scenario, at the time that the hammer fell, the precise assets to be used to make the payment are not known. Suppose the buyer refuses to pay, and is sued for $1M plus interest for the breach of contract.
What do the various tokens of "$1M" that would occur in the complaint
refer to? On What is the interest calculated?
Simon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
