Hi Pat, (01)
Pat Hayes wrote: (02)
>
> Ali Hashemi wrote:
>
>> I guess, if there are no serious errors in this email and the last,
>> are there any practical considerations which might hinder such
>> interoperability (aside from the non-existence of axioms thus far)?
>> Is the 3D-4D debate really an issue for people developing actual
>> ontology applications?
>
>
> It is, because there really are some tricky problems in making the
> various formal ontologies cooperate, and because both views have been
> used in actual deployed ontology standards. So we really do have an
> interoperability issue here. I don't say the situation is impossible,
> but it is of more than purely theoretical or philosophical interest. (03)
What are the actual deployed ontology standards and where are their
axiomatizations? (04)
I realize that ISO 15926 is always promoted as a 4D ontology, but it is
not axiomatized.
One point of Ali's posting is that until we get a concrete fixed set of
axioms for a 3D ontology
and a concrete fixed set of axioms for a 4D ontology, we cannot say
anything about whether
or a semantic mapping exists or what such a mapping requires. (05)
- michael (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|