To: | Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Cc: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
From: | Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 1 May 2008 00:57:34 +0200 |
Message-id: | <p06230908c43ea9305181@[192.168.8.171]> |
At 3:21 PM -0700 4/30/08, Duane Nickull wrote:
On 30/04/08 3:10 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote: Oh well, I thought I'd ask.
Did you have a more concrete answer? No. Well, yes: there isn't one (a minimal criterion). So lets
stop talking about it. Its not a complicated question, its a
meaningless question. Anything written in OWL counts as an
ontology. Some ontologies might not be much use, but they are
ontologies. I don't want OWL tools telling me that my OWL isn't
beautiful enough to count as an ontology, so they refuse to process
it.
Pat
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC 40 South Alcaniz St. Pensacola FL 32502 http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs OWL implementation, Duane Nickull |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs OWL implementation, Patrick Cassidy |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs OWL implementation, Duane Nickull |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs OWL implementation, Pat Hayes |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |