Patrick, I just had to raise by at least $0.02.|
When we say "universal, non-divisible idea" don't we really mean:
within our domain... this is a "
universal, non-divisible idea?" That is, everything we are modeling containing this "universal, non-divisible idea" has the same meaning that we assigned way back-when we introduced the "universal, non-divisible idea."
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Charles D Turnitsa wrote:
By concepts, here I mean a universal, non-divisible idea. This "concept"
when combined with others forms the definition of an entity.
Well, "*universal*, non-divisible idea" is at the heart of the problem
That is to say that as usually discussed, ontologies are making
universal claims, which may be valid for those using the ontology but
not valid for others.
I really don't see the probem with simply saying that for purpose X we
find that assuming a - z to be "universal, non-divisible ideas" is
useful. That is the scope of "universal" is limited to a particular
domain or problem area without trying to make claims for areas we
haven't bothered to explore. Or that others might resolve differently.
Rather than searching for or more commonly arguing about a common set of
"universal, non-divisible ideas" why not simply state the "universal,
non-divisible ideas" for a particular ontology and let it go at that?
I understood from the teleconference that last year's summit on upper
ontologies resulted in agreement to disagree. I can't imagine any other
outcome from a search for a common set of "universal, non-divisible
ideas." Certainly useful to see when one or more members of the
community think there are common "universal, non-divisible ideas" in
different ontologies but that doesn't make them any closer to (or
further away from) being universal.
Hope everyone is looking forward to a great weekend!
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 (01)