The puzzle is why you don't grasp the fact that the writer isAt the cost of getting scolded, this discussion is far from exhausted.
obviously arguing against the idea of a single ontology.
To the contrary, the discussion from which you lifted the above is entirely exhausted. Azamat had claimed that a certain passage he found on the NeOn website was confusedly arguing both for and against the idea of a single, unified ontology. In my comment above, I was simply pointing out that he was wrong about that; the passage he had quoted was quite clearly arguing against the idea of a single, unified ontology. He had simply misread it. End of discussion. I expressed no opinion whatever on the substance of that issue.