[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] file comments -- representation issues: voting ques

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Patrick Cassidy <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:00:03 -0500
Message-id: <403996E3.7070301@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Peter --
   I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by your note:    (01)

 > Good point, Adam.
 > May I suggest that discussions specific to Upper Ontology be considered
 > as being outside of our scope here. We should, predominantly, be dealing
 > in the "business" domian ontology. Is that ok with both of you, Pat & Adam?
 > Discussions like that should probably be done elsewhere, say, for
 > example, at the IEEE-SUO list.
 >    (02)

    What point of Adam's did you agree with?  Could you put it
in your own words?    (03)

    The additional content I have been suggesting is in most cases
*directly* related to the business Ontology, including the concept of
a "Context", which is used within the UBL specification.  More
detail will have to be added to "Context" to capture the different
types of business context that they feel are relevant.
    I will be quite happy to pursue discussions one-on-one
with anyone who has any questions, objections, or
suggestions for change in anything I have suggested.
However, I will simply ignore any suggestions to junk
everything and start all over, as Adam has recommended.
    I plan to suggest additional content as time permits,
and will be happy to discuss specifics about this content
in any forum.  I will also make, as I have already, comments
and suggestions about what others recommend.
    I have bent over backwards to avoid making any changes
in the existing SUMO/MILO, focusing on additions, with
only a few renamings where there was a logical error
(such as the use of "contract" in different senses)
or ambiguity was a threat.
    I have sent another note explaining why I think that
restricting additions of content from members (except
for logical inconsistency) is a really really **bad**
idea, and why addition of content only peripherally
related to the core business concepts can be helpful.
Whether or not a suggested business-related concept
captures the reality of business practice, or is
consistent with the UBL version, are important issues
for us.  Discussing whether a peripheral concept happens to
be essential at this particular time is likely to be a great
time-waster, with no possible objective resolution.
    Does anyone have any constructive comments on the
business concepts I have suggested?   Anyone?    (04)

    Pat    (05)

Patrick Cassidy    (06)

MICRA, Inc.                      || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave.               || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054        || (908) 668-5904 (fax)    (07)

internet:   cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
=============================================    (08)

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    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>