At 10:30 AM 6/12/2007, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >Barry and Pat,
> >
> >> >>> I just choose (like driving on the left). I choose to distinguish
> >>>>>between continuants and occurrents.
> >>>>
> >>>>Fine. But then the question arises as to whether your ontological
> >>>>framework, which requires this distinction, is of more use than a
> >>>>similar one which does not.
> >>>
> >>>I think we need to test this empirically. So far we are winning --
> >> >the GO is, by several measures,the world's most successful ontology.
> >>
> >>Ah, that is more like it. I agree you are winning. And it is
> >>refreshing to see philosophical arguments replaced by straightforward
> >>appeals to power and funding. As I have no funds to compete with, you
> >>will no doubt go on winning :-)
> >
> >I hope you boys have fun slugging it out on the playground. :-)
>
>Yeh, Im sorry about the slightly bilious tone there. I suffer from
>philosophy reflux syndrome.
>
> > In
> >the meantime, people are going to build ontologies, and they are
> >going to look to us for leadership on how to do it. Barry's legions
> >are busy building them with continuants and occurants. Pat doesn't
> >have any funding, he says. So he can't amass legions who will build
> >ontologies with spatiotemporal processes. Alas. But no doubt
> >someone will read his posts, and with dreams of matching Barry's
> >glory, start amassing armies to build them with spatiotemporal
> >processes. Then, some day, somebody is going to have an urgently
> >important problem that requires these ontologies to interoperate.
>
>I don't think that will be much of a problem, most of the time.
>Translating from c/o to spatiotemporal is really not much more than
>judicious deletion. Translating in the other direction will require
>some pattern-recognition to 'see' c- and o-type formulations, and
>maybe in some cases splitting a concept into a continuant and its
>lifetime (which are identified in spatiotemporal).
>
>I would say, in passing, that my views on this issue have been
>informed in large part by trying to create useful interoperation
>between a number of different ontologies. (01)
I agree with Pat. Indeed I could embrace the views expressed in these
last two paragraphs verbatim.
I will refrain from making jokes about what we get from judicious
deletion of, e.g., all the nouns in the Bible.
BS (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (03)
|