[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] More on the 2005.11.10 discussion [was-Re: briefing on

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <sicop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:35:46 -0800
Message-id: <4378D902.9060509@xxxxxxxx>
Both Duane and I thought we'll get more out of the conversation 
with the discourse on the public list.    (01)

Further discourse on the matter is welcomed!    (02)

--    (03)

Duane Nickull wrote Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:57:17 -0800:
> IT is okay to leave my name in this.  I concur - belongs on the list.
> D    (04)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Peter Yim
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 5:31 PM
> To: Obrst, Leo J.
> Cc: Kurt Conrad; Bob Smith; Duane Nickull; Rex Brooks
> Subject: Re: briefing on range of semantic models?
> Thanks, Leo.
> This is interesting discussion, and should be on the [public]
> list, and not as an offline chat.
> If no one objects, I try to transfer this thread over to
> the [ontolog-forum] ... and let's continue the discourse there (and
> hopefully, Barry and Denise can join us there too ... and they can do
> their own parts in first person.)
> Cheers.  =ppy
> --    (05)

> On 11/11/05, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>No, I missed Barry's briefing but know his slant and we are nearly
>>completely in synch.
>>Single inheritance is probably a red herring. But multiple is
>>over-used, so probably that's why Barry states that.
>>Wwhere I view concepts as the ideas that stand in 
>>for the real world referents. I know Barry wants to go 
>>immediately to the latter, but I suggest it's pragmatically
>>easier (using the triangle of signification) to view concepts as
>>Frege's senses, for example, and the real world things as the
>>Leo    (06)

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>>Peter Yim
>>Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 11:59 AM
>>To: Obrst, Leo J.; Kurt Conrad
>>Cc: Bob Smith; Duane Nickull; Rex Brooks
>>Subject: Re: briefing on range of semantic models?
>>Thanks, Leo.
>>I agree ... I don't think you (we) can repeat this enough ... not
>>until people can internalize the fact that the terms "semantics" and
>>"ontology" are, themselves, so "rich" ("ambiguous" if you are an
>>Don't know if you did catch Barry Smith's talk (slides and audio
>>available), I think it was his assertion (if I got it right) that we
>>should forget semantics as being about "concepts" ... and to his urge
>>that we should pick "low hanging fruits" that [sparked the debate.]
>>That said,  I'd love to have you go over the piece you suggested some
>>time soon. ...  I hope [you can also] come up with the
>>means to help people tell what applications are "syntactically
>>interoperable", "structurally interoperable" and "semantically
>>interoperable"; and when can we start calling an application "ontology
>>driven" [too].
>>Cheers.  =ppy
>>--    (07)

>>On 11/11/05, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>Peter, Kurt,
>>>Listening to the last half of  the Ontolog telecon yesterday, I was
>>>struck by the confusion I heard reflected in the Denise/Barry Smith
>>>exchange. If you wish at one of the future sessions I can go over
>>>a subset of the material attached, which tries to differentiate
>>>some key concepts (term vs.
>>>concept), and the kinds of semantic models on the Ontology Spectrum:
>>>Taxonomy, Thesaurus, Conceptual Model, Logical Theory.
>>>I don't know what the schedule is, but this confusion really needs
>>>to be cleared up. This is based on a presentation I did at the Army 
>>>Knowledge Management Conference in Sept. 04 in Ft. Lauderdale (we had 
>>>to flee right after to avoide hurricane Francis!).
>>>Let me know your thoughts.
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    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [ontolog-forum] More on the 2005.11.10 discussion [was-Re: briefing on range ofsemantic models?], Peter P. Yim <=