On May 30, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> Just one point in response to Ian:
>
>> On May 30, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Ian Bailey wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> . . .
>>
>>> So, I think the idea of one set of primitives to rule them all is
>>> impractical at least, and probably impossible. Based just on the
>>> range of opinion on ontolog alone, you can bloody well forget it.
>
> The audience for an FO containing all the primitives that are needed
> for semantic interoperability includes all of the database
> developers who now are building their own idiosyncratic conceptual
> models and could just as easily (more easily) use a well-established
> and well-tested set of primitive conceptual elements to specify the
> meanings of their domain data elements. This potential audience is
> vastly larger than the ontolog forum, but needs publicly testable
> examples of use before they will pay any attention.
>
> I am suggesting that we actually investigate the issue with a proper
> test rather than simply assume it is impossible and congratulate
> each other on our ignorance. (01)
Pat, (02)
By my lights people with years of theoretical and practical experience
in AI and ontological engineering have given *arguments* against the
feasibility of a single FO. These arguments might prove unsound, but
surely they amount to a great deal more than an uncritical, self-
congratulatory *assumption* that an FO is impossible. (03)
-chris (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|