> > As you know, Patrick, I don't think this is even remotely feasible.
>What specifically isn't feasible? Specifically, what cannot be done? (01)
Locate a set of basic concepts sufficient that all others can be
derived from the base set by writing definitions. Now, of course, in
a sense this is trivial, since any set of concepts can be defined to
be the 'base'. But I assume that you intend it to be understood in a
nontrivial way. (02)
>Finding a set of concepts that will be sufficient to specify the
>meanings of others? (03)
Yes, precisely that. (04)
> What would it take to prove that it is feasible? (05)
What would it take to show it is feasible to walk to the moon? You
can try to do it. You will get somewhere. At any point, you can say
that more work will get more results. All of this is true, and yet
the goal will always remain elusive. A better question is: how will
you know when you have succeeded? (06)
>Perhaps you can provide a set of "challenge" concepts that will allow
>us to know when we have succeeded? (07)
My point is that you will never know this. And you will never
succeed. And, more really to the point, it will not matter, since
there is no point it trying to achieve this unattainable goal.
Suppose for a moment that it were possible and you had in fact done
it. So what? What use would it be? It would not provide any guarantee
that it could not all have been done differently, and indeed probably
is being done differently elsewhere. (08)
>260 Industrial Way West
>Eatontown NJ 07724
>> -----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
>> >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
>> >(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
>> 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.
>> 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,
>> it is being built by anyone who wants to get involved, is located
>> nowhere and everywhere, and is owned by nobody.
>> 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
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 (011)
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 (012)