|From:||Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0500|
...anybody who needs a different ontology for numbers can use that instead.
Somehow I'm reminded of the saying "the nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from"
Seriously, if we can't agree on a standard for something as basic as a number, what are the chances for interoperability without the need for expensive and continuing human intervention?
To get a measure of how far there is still to go on this journey, here's a real world problem description that serves as a nice example of an interoperability requirement:
Cheers, -- Adrian
Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over SQL and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com Shared use is free
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:23 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Most people on this list understand the distinction between form
_________________________________________________________________ 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:||[ontolog-forum] form and content, FERENC KOVACS|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Form and content, Rich Cooper|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Form and content, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Form and content, Rich Cooper|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|