|Date:||Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:00:46 +0700|
I dont know what part of the discussion you have followed, and what part you are in agreement with, but
the intended use of the word 'formalism as used in some earlier in this thread, is consistent with the widely accepted definition, including wordnet, which I provided a link to.
as a last attempt to make the point, I ll specify that using the word formalism in natural languages is intended to refere to the underlying structures such as syntax....
should the intended meaning be contrasted to other definitions not better specified, then is likely to find myself in agreement too...
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Chris Welty <cawelty@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paola Di Maio
i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-semantics.tugraz.at
SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Chris Welty|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Pat Hayes|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Chris Welty|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards, Matthew West|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|