PatH, (01)
[PH] > As you know, Patrick, I don't think this is even remotely
feasible.
I will be grateful for anyone who thinks this to specify
(1) what cannot be done; and
(2) how it would be possible to prove that it can be done (02)
That will give me a concrete objection to address. (03)
[PH]
> The ontologies in the SW are your 'contexts', (04)
[PC] no, if it does prove necessary to have contexts in the base
defining vocabulary (occasioned by logically incompatible assertions in
the foundation ontology), these would have to specify precisely the
parts of the foundation ontology with which the alternative theory is
inconsistent, and would still be consistent with the remainder. The
Semantic Web method does not guarantee that any independently developed
ontology is consistent with any other. One can of course, with some
effort verify that one ontology that uses or references another is
consistent with it, but that will not be the expectation. This is very
drastically different from having one set of base concepts that every
derivative context or theory references, with any inconsistencies
specified and sequestered from those parts with which it is consistent. (05)
And in any case, I don't expect that logical inconsistencies will be
necessary in the base conceptual defining vocabulary, they are more
likely to occur in extensions. They aren't in the Cyc BaseKB or in
SUMO+MILO. (06)
Pat (07)
Patrick Cassidy
CNTR-MITRE
260 Industrial Way West
Eatontown NJ 07724
Eatontown: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx (08)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:36 PM
> To: Cassidy, Patrick J.
> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
>
> >Chris, John, et al:
> > I think that a perfectly feasible "common basis" for
> >interoperability and integration of multiple ontologies is a
> foundation
> >ontology structured as a "conceptual defining vocabulary"
> that contains
> >all the concepts that are necessary and sufficient to specify the
> >meanings of any other more specialized concepts, using subclasses,
> >relations, functions, and axioms all of whose constant terms
> are either
> >(1) contained in the foundation ontology or (2) themselves
> specifiable
> >(recursively, if necessary) by terms in the foundation ontology.
>
> As you know, Patrick, I don't think this is even remotely feasible.
> Whats more, it isn't necessary, even if it were feasible. Your
> 'foundation ontology', described below, will have different points of (09)
> view enclosed in 'contexts',and will be freely expandable, and will
> have ontology-style definitions of concepts in terms of other
> concepts, or more generally inferential connections between concepts. (010)
> This thing, under another name, is already being constructed. It is
> called the Semantic Web. The ontologies in the SW are your
> 'contexts', and the entire SWeb, a world-wide distributed entity
> always under construction and never finished, is your 'foundation
> ontology'. But the main difference is that, rather than being built
> by a committee and located in and controlled by a single institution, (011)
> it is being built by anyone who wants to get involved, is located
> nowhere and everywhere, and is owned by nobody.
>
> Pat
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
> (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|