> [mm1] Can we concentrate on the core set of goals we need
> to achieve ... (01)
I agree with Monica, I think we all do. (02)
At the same time, I think the debate is important, necessary and
healthy (as long as no one gets real mad in the process). It's going
just great ... so do keep it up! I'm learning a lot from it myself ...
and I trust I'm not the only one. We need the discourse to come up
with an optimal solution. This *is* also part of the work we have set
out to do too. (03)
A lot of work can be done while we are having the debate ...
especially if the outcome is that both representations are normative.
Following both Adam and Pat's example and prompt, let's not hold off
working on the ubl-ontology conversion/formalization while we thrash
out the more theoretical aspects on methodology and tools selection,
even if it's each in our own way. Things like understanding what is in
the UBL package; what is behind the UBL thinking; identifying and
enumerating the important terms and conceptual elements; ... etc.
These are all generic, and we all need to put time into them before
each of us can make meaningful contribution anyway. (05)
To recap, again, on our 2003-08-07 conference call, we are aiming at
coming up with a ubl-ontology deliverable by the week of 2003-10-27
and to meet face-to-face some time that week to tie it down. (see:
). Therefore, we need to move the work forward. (07)
Appreciations to all who are contributing to the discourse, and to the
ubl-ontology project work. May I also take the opportunity to solicit
more of you to join in. (08)
Monica Martin wrote Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:03:07 -0600: (010)
> Adam Pease wrote Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:59:25 -0700:
>> At 01:30 AM 8/9/2003 -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>>> I am exceedingly reluctant to get into a prolonged
>>> discussion of representation formats, but since assertions
>>> have been made that I think are not correct, I will
>>> state my views.
>>> As best I can tell, Protege has mechanisms that will
>>> permit us to include everything that can be stated in
>> I'll try to answer in more detail later, but this is just plain
>> false. Protege is a frame language. It can't represent ternary or
>> high-arity relations, quantification etc. The only way one could
>> interpret this statement as being true would be a trivial one in which
>> one can include the axioms in comments. In that sense Forth, XML,
>> SQL, CLASSIC etc are all, doxastic, modal, deontic, higher order
>> logics, with probabilistic features, because you can put anything in a
>> comment string.
> mm1: Everyone, I can appreciate each of you is compassionate about your
> position and the need to use either approach. However, for those of us
> just learning and trying to grasp these concepts, I think this is a bit
> overwhelming. Can we concentrate on the core set of goals we need to
> achieve and the use of tools that can help us get there? Thank you.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)