ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Disaster Management ontology BOF in Delft

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:34:19 +0200
Message-id: <46694CCB.4020009@xxxxxxxxxxx>
The discussion would certainly be made clearer if one could support the 
claims with a simple example;  e.g., two ontologies that taken together 
are inconsistent, which cannot be reduced to a single consistent 
ontology, and which both are necessary to cover the needs for all 
involved in modeling the domain.    (01)

As in mathematics, illustrative examples help in understanding dry 
theories.  I sympathize with Bill, and would like to see a 
counterexample to what he says.    (02)

vQ    (03)

Bill Andersen wrote:
> Hi John...
> 
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 01:42 , John F. Sowa wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>       .bill
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>      (04)

-- 
Wacek Kusnierczyk    (05)

------------------------------------------------------
Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
7027 Trondheim
Norway    (06)

tel.   0047 73591875
fax    0047 73594466
------------------------------------------------------    (07)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>