Additonal comments: (01)
Ref. the statement (used in our response): (02)
"A formalized ontology is nominally an explicit specification of
the conceptual understandings shared by a community of practice. ..." (03)
I suggest we should use, instead: (04)
"To the information science and technology professional, an
ontology is nominally an explicit specification of the conceptual
understandings shared by a community of practice. ..." (05)
1. I qualified it by adding "To the information science and
technology professional" because, ontology may mean something quite
different to, say, the metaphysicists. (07)
2. I also took out the word "formalized", because (a) Ontolog purports
to deal with both formal and informal ontologies, and (b) the
discourse on "ontologies", even to the information scientists, has
(arguably) extended to cover "formal", as well as "semi-formal" and
"informal" ontologies. (08)
I just wanted to document this, as we'll quite possibly be using this
paragraph over-and-over again as a boiler plate in the future. (09)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:03:11 -0800, Peter P. Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bob et al.,
> Great Job! Kudos to all who contributed to the response.
> I've uploaded the response to our file repository as:
> Best wishes to the team ... when the next phase of the NHIN activities
> come around.
> Thanks & regards. -ppy
> Bob Smith wrote Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:58:40 -0800:
> > Attached is the Ontolog Community response to the RFI issues by Dr.
> > Brailer's Office.
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 (011)