An example is described here: (01)
At 08:34 AM 6/8/2007, Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:
>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.
>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.
>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
>Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
>Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
>Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
>tel. 0047 73591875
>fax 0047 73594466
>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
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 (05)