Dear Matthew, (01)
I intended to save the previous note as a draft, which I planned
to finish later. But I accidentally hit send instead of save.
In any case, you responded to some important points, which should
be resolved before we continue. (02)
JFS>> But for most applications, the most important ontologies are the
>> low-level ones that are often independent of the upper levels. (03)
MW> Not between 3D and 4D. It goes all the way down. I only wish
> that were not so. (04)
I agree that is true for some applications, but I seriously doubt that
it is true for a large number of important applications. (05)
JFS>> For example, an airline schedule has lots of times and places,
>> but it is irrelevant whether the upper level uses a 3+1D or 4D
>> axiomatization of space and time or how the upper level defines
>> objects, people, and events. (06)
MW> No it is not. (07)
I very, very, very strongly doubt that the choice of a 3D vs 4D
upper ontology would have the slightest effect on the design
of a database for airline schedules, train schedules, and many
similar applications. (08)
I'd like to hear any arguments to the contrary, but I doubt that
a strong case can be made that a 4D ontology is a requirement for
those applications. (09)
MW> The point I was trying to make is that different peoples mental
> models are not the same, so there is no reason why they should
> easily agree on an ontology just because they share a common
> language to describe their mental models (010)
I very strongly agree with that point. (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|