On Jan 16, 2009, at 5:16 PM, ..(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) wrote: <snip> {snip}
I disagree (Pat H). Both these accounts use orderings.
They all use different notions of order, though. As I said earlier, if you seek what is common to them all, what you get is a very minimal notion, that time-points are partially ordered. That alone is not enough for a useful temporal ontology.
[Begin Ali5]
Quite so.
But, I can organize all those different partial orders in such a way to facilitate the ontology alignment process (that's in effect what i'm doing - alignment) .
The algorithm uses a referent ontology (the repository) to first align ontologies to a commonly understood set of conceptual theories. It then provides the user with an alignment of the target ontologies as understood (if applicable) by the ontologies in the repository. The terminology i'm using is as defined by Choi et al (2006) - N, Choi, I-Y. Song, and H. Han, "A Survey of Ontology Mapping." ACM SIGMOD Record vol. 35, iss. 3 pp. 34 – 41, September 2006.
OK, thanks for the clarifications. Your work does indeed sound very interesting, and I agree that this kind of meta-description of multiple ontologies is what we will need, rather than trying to reduce them all to a single coherent viewpoint. For the record, I don't think that the vocabulary of ontology mappings is yet rich enough to describe all that we need, but that is to be expected at this early stage.
We will have to agree to disagree about McLuhan. It is now a long time since I read him, but I have better things to do than to go through that experience again.
PatH ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
|