|From:||"Neil Custer" <neil.custer@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 22 May 2008 09:13:44 -0500|
re: Any such classification oversimplifies too much.
Unfortunately, in consideration of some of the people I need to educate on the value of ontology engineering, there is no such thing as "oversimplification". Generalizations are a good thing, just like top-level ontologies. They help give some common "frame of reference" to work with, even if those I'm sharing with don't understand half of the concepts the way that I do. Having said that, I've much catching up to do, but I'm motivated. I'm finding your "Mathematical Background" material good reading. That should tell you something.
_________________________________________________________________ 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] Data Models v. Ontologies (again), John F. Sowa|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Data Models v. Ontologies (again), Ed Barkmeyer|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Data Models v. Ontologies (again), John F. Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Data Models v. Ontologies (again), Ed Barkmeyer|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|