[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:08:51 -0500
Message-id: <49920903.3000501@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ian,    (01)

I read what you said was the foundation:    (02)

 > Does anybody read past the first sentence before firing off
 > responses to the exploder  ?    (03)

That was all that you put into that previous note.    (04)

 > Under the foundation, we have common patterns for agent, process, etc.    (05)

Fine.  Those would qualify for some of the kinds of things one
would want in an ontology.    (06)

As I have said many times, I would be happy to see a registry that
accepted an open-ended list of submissions.  To prevent people from
dumping any half-baked file into the registry, there could be some
policy, such as requiring some reviewing for competence and some
syntactic checker that would make sure that minimal requirements
were met.    (07)

Among the contributions to the registry would be axiomatizations
of all the major mathematical theories that anyone has found useful.    (08)

Contributors should be encouraged to build their ontologies, as far
as possible, by combining and/or modifying previous contributions.
And every such combination or modification should be clearly
documented. The result would be a generalization hierarchy of
theories that showed all dependencies.    (09)

As time went on, the hierarchy would clearly demonstrate which
modules were more frequently used and reused in constructing other
ontologies.   Any collection of modules that were consistently
used and reused to build a significant number of ontologies in
the hierarchy would automatically become prime candidates for
a "foundational ontology".    (010)

It's also possible that no single collection would be used in a
majority of the ontologies in the registry, but that there were
two or more disjoint collections that were widely used for
different kinds of applications.  That would also be a useful
outcome.    (011)

The kind of consensus that emerges -- a posteriori -- by the
free choice of developers is far more likely to be widely
usable than anything that is legislated or edicted a priori.    (012)

John Sowa    (013)

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    (014)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>