[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity

To: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:22:39 -0600
Message-id: <p06230902c1e66f60d9c0@[]>
>Hi Pat
>I can see that we are in for argument...
>It's going to take time to address of your points,    (01)

I look forward to your response.    (02)

>In the papers proper, I do quote references to published research,
>supported by studies and documentation, published in the last yer make
>the statements
>to which you refer to as 'figments', also there is a wealth of novel 
>research on
>collaborative and modular ontology engineering,    (03)

I would be delighted to see pointers to this, and discover how it 
relates to the ontology engineering discipline with which I am more 
familiar. I am of course familiar with the AI literature on for 
example natural language understanding.    (04)

>so for half of the
>answers, just read
>the most recent papers on ontology engineering, I take it that you
>have not been keeping up with you reading?    (05)

Perhaps not. I have been rather busy writing standards and designing 
tools lately.    (06)

>I will send the links when I can    (07)

Please do.    (08)

>Also, somehow I am shocked that people think that RDF is an ontology,    (09)

I don't believe I ever said that. I said that RDF is a standard 
(perhaps I should have said a W3C standard) ontology 
language/notation. RDF, RDFS, OWL, CL, KIF, CLIF and IKL (among many 
others of various degrees of expressivity) are all ontology 
languages, or can be treated as such (KIF for example was designed as 
a knowledge interchange language before the "ontology" buzzword 
became fashionable, but the technical facts are not influenced by 
buzzwords.)    (010)

>and if any argument does not fit the RDF description then is not valid    (011)

Of course I never said that. My point was merely that RDF is current 
(maybe even old, by now) technology, and satisfies some of your 
requirements. SO, these particular requirements are already met, was 
my point (unless of course I have misunderstood what exactly you 
meant.)    (012)

>I find this too absurd even to argue, but here I am
>RDF is not  an ontology  by any accepted definition, RDF is a schema
>or schema language    (013)

Quite. Although the term 'schema language' is better applied to RDFS 
than RDF, which is little more than a convenient notation, in 
practice.    (014)

>but please point me to relevant literature to show me otherwise
>as for the rest, I think that we are in the moon/finger situation
>I point to the moon, but all you can see is the finger
>thanks a lot for reading and responding to my drafts anyway
>it will all become clear eventually, promise    (015)

I await your revelations.    (016)

Pat    (017)

IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (018)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (019)

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