John (01)
In the post I was replying to, you wrote: (02)
"As I have said in various notes, my view of a foundational
ontology consists of a large, but very sparsely axiomatized
type hierarchy, which would primarily be based on two relations:
type/subtype and part/whole. In fact, it might be better to
think of it as little more than a well-designed taxonomy and
meronomy for a large vocabulary." (03)
The comment was that you probably need a bigger range of fundamental
relationships to cover what is available on the web. Most web pages are
presentations
rendering a representation (HTML, XML) describing a "property" of something
at
some point in its lifecycle from a particular viewpoint. There is quite a
difference
between buying a Ferrari on E-bay and buying a picture of the Ferarri, so
knowing whether
the reference is to the picture or the thing it presents is quite important. (04)
We might sensibly have a debate whether views, representations etc are "as
foundational" as
subtypes or part/whole - though not this week, as I'm travelling. (05)
Sean Barker
Bristol (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> John F. Sowa
> Sent: 16 October 2008 09:36
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Looking forward at the past
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either
> from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Sean,
>
> I don't know why you repeated those points to me, since I
> have never raised any objections to them:
>
> SB> STEP (as I say incessantly), separates out Product, version,
> > view, property, property-representation and representation-
> > presentation, and relates them pairwise in that order. It also has
> > type/subtype, has-a and has-role. The semantics of all
> these relations
> > make them seem fundamentally different, especially when
> coupled with
> > the existence rules of STEP relationships....
>
> That's fine.
>
> I never objected to any of those points. I was merely
> pointing out that in most cases where two agents
> interoperate, they only need to align the intersection of
> their ontologies that is relevant to the task. Using STEP
> for that subset is quite reasonable.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|