Gary, (01)
I wouldn't use that analogy: (02)
> Applied to building an ontology prgamaticaly for a particular
> use one add particular axions to a very general soup substrate
> and solidifies a KB. (03)
The soup analogy is a way of characterizing the problem, not
the solution: (04)
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/challenge.pdf
The Challenge of Knowledge Soup (05)
As a solution, I would suggest something along the lines of Section 4,
in particular the cycle of pragmatism in Figure 5 (page 14). (06)
The soup is not something you "add" to in order to build a precise,
executable module or system, but a resource from which you "take"
rough chunks in order to create the sparkling gem. (07)
As I said in my previous note, Unix should be the model to emulate,
not Windows. Microsoft built Windows by adding more and more stuff
to the soup. That's a prime example of the problem. Apple adopted
the Unix solution of keeping the foundation as clean and simple as
possible. (08)
When the Microsoft gang said that they were completely rewriting
Windows for the new Vista (formerly Longhorn) system, I hoped that
they had learned their lesson. But when they said they were spending
more money than it took to send astronauts to the moon, I realized
that they hadn't. (09)
It's a tragedy that MSFT hired so many talented people and wasted
all that talent with a disastrous design. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|