Hi John... (01)
On Jun 8, 2007, at 01:42 , John F. Sowa wrote: (02)
> Those are two important points, but they don't exhaust all the
> options. There are many cases where the ontologies happen to have
> some features that create inconsistencies, but with some revisions
> those inconsistencies could be eliminated by redefining some of
> the terms. There are also many cases where the same thing is
> viewed at different levels of granularity or from different
> perspectives. Any inconsistencies caused by such methods
> could also be eliminated, in principle.
>
> However, the job of eliminating every one of the inconsistencies
> that could arise could take an enormous amount of effort. Instead
> of striving for a global consistency of everything, it might be
> better to adopt methods that don't require global consistency. (03)
What I was more trying to get at was the notion of identity (or
perhaps unity) for "ontologies". In Sean's original note, he said
something like "a single ontology cannot be used". You just gave us
a recipe for how to make (IMO) a single ontology from Sean's
"inconsistent" pieces, via the use of reformulation of his pieces to
make them consistent, or via use of some kind of paraconsistency. (04)
That was what I was trying to get to in my original note – loose talk
of "one single ontology for X can't ..." is usually based on equally
loose understanding of the terms "ontology" and "can't". Sorry I
wasn't more explicit about this in my original note. (05)
.bill (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|