Modeling of entities (endurants) is enough. Why do researchers need to model perdurants in domain ontologies?
I guess, there is no difference between the following two way of modeling domain ontologies:
1. modeling endurants using perdurants
2. modeling only endurants.
what do you say?
Just have a look at the following article : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/temporal-parts/
This served me as a starter about the problems concerning endurance and perdurance. When you have a look at the literature you also see, that various papers have slightly different notions of endurants and perdurants. However,
when modeling ,you really have to pay attention to the problems inherent in these notions. At first I thought these discussions irrelevant, but now I am not so sure anymore!
J. W. Nieuwenhuis Thanks for your reply. I am reading the mentioned article. Thanks.
From a practical point of view, there are ephemeral states which can have a significant effect on the long term state of a system.
The likelihood of such a situation depends greatly on what you are my modelling, of course. Models of sales or pedestrian flow in supermarkets, for example, are likely to have these perdurant events accounted for (at least if the events are frequent enough).
Rare transient events may exhibit catastrophic effects on a system which are quite disproportionate to their likelihood -- dry lightning or lightning strikes in regions where these phenomena do not usually occur might be an example.
You can't include *everything* in a model, but it makes sense to include everything for which there is evidence, even it it is a once in a few centuries kind of event. ... At least if it isn't *too* onerous!
Cheers, Randall
Of course we might be using "perdurant" with different understandings, so my apologies if I have missed your point.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Modeling