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)
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
>>From: peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>>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?
>>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
>>On 11/11/05, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>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)