My preference is to build ontologies from a library of modules
at varying levels of depth. I'm not against the idea of putting
some axioms at a very high level for some kinds of reasoning.
Some of the *optional* modules might have very detailed and
very general axioms that are inherited by lower levels. (02)
But I have serious doubts about legislating a one-size-fits-all
ontology with many *required* axioms at the upper levels. (03)
MW>>> Not what I have seen, I see small number of important things,
>>> but they are inherited by a lot of stuff, and thus support
JFS>> That's what I would call "an enormous number of implications".
>> Every general property and mechanism of Animal has implications
>> for Cat, Dog, Worm, Fish, Koala, Wombat, or Binturong.
PH> But John, I believe you said in another thread that your ideal upper
> ontology would have no axioms in it. So what is there to infer from
an > inheritance? What is there to inherit? (04)
I was talking about Matthew's ontology. I would not start with any
fixed upper level, but I believe we must accommodate any upper level
that Matthew or anybody else chooses to adopt. (05)
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 (07)