[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but both needed

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:46:48 +0200
Message-id: <46769AD8.8010100@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Bill Andersen wrote:    (01)

> I'll pose this question to the list as I've posed it before to many  
> others, most of whom have failed to give a satisfactory reply  if  
> ontology-building is an exercise in application-specific modeling  
> among a constrained group of users, then why is it not just a variant  
> on what we already do with UML which goes under the more pedestrian  
> name of data modeling?  Surely it cannot be the use of this or that  
> formalism which delivers the desired interoperability properties.     (02)

Bill,    (03)

Would you provide us with your favourite satisfactory reply to this 
question?    (04)

vQ    (05)

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    (06)

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