Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

["Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>]

Concerning a comment of John:
[JS] > So far, the best recommendation is to consider the FO as a theory
that has been awarded a gold medal for success in some competition.
And the best competition is the marketplace of ideas:    (01)

I accept that.  The FO, if developed by a process such as I have suggested,
will get its gold medal for successfully integrating the diverse separately
developed applications in that project.  If later some better FO is
developed and gets a wider usership, that may supersede the first FO and be
awarded the gold medal.    (02)

The problem I am addressing is that at present we have *no* FO (or any other
system) that has been tested and verified as supporting general accurate
semantic interoperability.  And I seriously doubt that any comparable useful
FO or set of modules could be developed and tested at any less cost.  My
concern is the cost of delay.  An FO or its equivalent may emerge eventually
from many many local mappings (or module accretions).  But at the current
pace that could take a very long time.  Time may heal all wounds, but as
Keynes said "In the long run we are all dead".  And in the meanwhile we will
be wasting lots of money because of the loss of opportunities afforded by
interoperability.    (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)