Chris, (01)
On March 17 you had written (where I have anonymized your
reference to a language): (02)
> [If] you want [your language] to be of general use as an
> ontology language that helps us to leverage high-speed computer
> networks to share, integrate, and reason upon large bodies of
> information, then [your language] needs a formal semantics that
> (i) fixes the meanings of its primitive constructs and (ii)
> assigns definite meanings to complex expressions recursively in
> terms of the meanings of their simpler parts. Without this it
> is impossible to guarantee that information has been exchanged
> and integrated accurately and that inferences drawn on the basis
> of that information are sound. (03)
That seems to me a nicely succinct, self-contained yet
appropriately contextualized statement of requirements - and thank
you for it! (04)
But I would like to quote you on it (in my long-promised "5th
instalment" of my "MACK basics" series from last year, which is
about to resume, along with some key supporting material (so that
you know what you might be letting yourself in for!)). (05)
So would you perhaps like to qualify it, or expand on it (though
not too much!)? Or refer me rather to some other such statement
by yourself, or by someone else? (06)
Then a further question (hopefully not a sting in the tail):
Would it undermine your whole intent if you dropped the word
"ontology" from the opening conditional clause? (07)
Christopher (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|