To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Александр Шкотин <alex.shkotin@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:15:10 +0300 |
Message-id: | <b24945a10902141015g61467518n1a9cf12edb011f9a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
John,
it seems that "single universal ontology" for usual life should be more or less simple.
do we have one in formal form somewhere?
Alex
Context:
And by the way, this illustrates another reason why a single universal ontology would not be used for practical applications. To be truly universal, the ontology would have to be stated at the most fundamental level possible. But that level is likely to be too complex for practical computation. (Just look at quantum electrodynamics or string theory, for example.) John
_________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Александр Шкотин |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Pat Hayes |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |