On Jun 7, 2007, at 04:25 , Barker, Sean (UK) wrote:
That is, I don't think that "event" can be represented by a single ontology, and that it should be represented by a set of factor ontologies (for scale, cause and actor) for which there is some measure of agreement.
If you have some entity or entities E that can't be represented by a single ontology and which you will represent using "factor" ontologies, then one of these must be the case:
1) The factor ontologies are inconsistent when combined, in which case there's not much point in talking about E in the first place except in the sense the representation so made could be read by humans (for which we already have great natural languages).
2) The factor ontologies are not inconsistent when combine, in which case could you clear up what you meant by "I don't think that "event" can be represented by a single ontology", since clearly in this case they can be so used.