Pat Hayes wrote:
>> But I dont understand why
>> . I don't think it makes sense to refer to an ontology as being
>> open (or not).
>> why not?
> Well, what would it mean to say that a Word document was 'open'? An
> ontology is a (document consisting of) a collection of formal
> sentences. You can read the document: how much more 'open' can it get? (01)
so why does it make sense to refer to a piece of code as being open (or
not)? well, what would it mean to say that a piece of code was 'open'?
a piece of code is a (document consisting of) a collection of statements
in a programming language. you can read/parse/compile/execute the
document: how much more 'open' can it get? if you *can* read it, it
can't pobably get more open (unless 'open' implies some sort of licence
for modification, redistribution, etc., so that beng able to read a
document would not be all one could do with open documents). but what
if you can't? you know it is there, you know people use it, but you
can't read it, unless you pay, or unless you're appropriately employed. (02)
i don't think it makes sense to deny that an ontology could be
meaningfully called 'open' (or not). (03)
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 (05)