Comment on Mike Bennett's note:
[MB] > I do think that some of us may still be talking slightly at cross
> purposes about what's an Upper Ontology, what's a framework for
> integrating ontologies, whether one of necessity has to be the other
> and so on. Meanwhile there are things which some people call "Domain"
which
> are fundamental enough to be used by multiple domains; particularly law,
> financial accounting and economic activity.
> (01)
Yes, there has been much fuzziness about what should or should not be in an
"upper ontology". That is one of the reasons why I have suggested that
focusing on the semantic primitives is a way of putting some boundary on the
task. The Longman (or Guo) list is a starting point for trying to identify
those primitives. (02)
But the function of integrating and translating multiple ontologies can be
viewed as a "domain" in itself, with a well-defined purpose. And, if one
wants to address the relationship of language to the ontology, it helps to
recognize that the creation of clear comprehensible dictionary definitions
as one of the "word games" that constrains the number of senses for the
words used in that context. (03)
Pat (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|