Hi John, (01)
You wrote... (02)
I believe that Pat's primitives are the 2000+ words in Longman's list.
But more important than the list would be examples of how they could
be used for any useful application. (03)
...about (04)
If I've understood you correctly then I agree - words aren't ontological
primitives, they're words. We need to identify what those words refer to if
we're developing an ontology. Otherwise all we get is a controlled
vocabulary (taxonomy ?) and there are enough of those out there already. The
problems that need to be sorted in an upper ontology are much more
fundamental. They're about how ontologies deal with physical stuff, whether
classes are identified by their extent, etc. (05)
Also, IMHO, 2000+ isn't going to fly. If the community can agree 20-30
high-level concepts, I'd be amazed. That's not a snide comment either
(unusually for me), it's based on grim memories of endless meetings in hotel
convention centres deciding on the meaning of words like "system",
"capability" and "process". (06)
Ian (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|