Pat Hayes: (01)
> or (3) find ways to
> translate between them as they arise. I strongly believe that the
> only long-term feasible method is (3), and we have made considerable
> progress along these lines, enough to suggest that the translations
> are always possible and often fairly easy, once one approaches the
> problem in a pragmatic frame of mind. If all ontologies were written
> in IKL, we could definitely do the translations for almost all of the
> problems I aware of. (02)
Absolutely. Thanks Pat H. for setting out the options so clearly.
We are also committed entirely to this alternative and are working
on both the specifications and the translations (theory morphisms)
within CASL. We will also be looking at the relationship between
our CASL ontologies and the way things get done in IKL. (03)
Way to go. (04)
Pat C: (05)
> when we get down to the case where one is building an
> application, and wants to use only one of those representations, there
> has to be a mechanism to pull out only the representations one wants,
> and delete the remainder. (06)
And that is why one needs strong stucturing mechanisms, formally
defined, for managing the organisation and its complexity: again,
cf. CASL and its structuring mechanisms. (07)
John B. (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|