|From:||Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:12:59 -0400|
To echo Chris S's point.|
When we translate between CAD tools which use Tarski primitives (only points), and Hilbert primitives (points, lines and planes), in our translation between the two software choices, we aren't worried about talking about "meaningless" (gag-worthy) abstractions. They are fundamental to interoperability.
I might object to these translations on real, philosophical grounds and the ensuing discussion and contention through such a focus may also affect engineering / business implementations. However, given the state of what is today, and the fact that as you point out, the translations are fairly clear - aside from actually specifying the mereology axioms, what's the ontology engineering problem? Aesthetic displeasure at a mapping axiom?
I hope my question is clear,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Christopher Spottiswoode <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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] Incompatibilities in 3D to 4D, Christopher Spottiswoode|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Incompatibilities in 3D to 4D, Richard H. McCullough|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Incompatibilities in 3D to 4D, Christopher Spottiswoode|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Incompatibilities in 3D to 4D, Pat Hayes|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|