ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Subject Line!

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 04:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <710065.52186.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Okay peter, we will make sure that we will use appropriate subject line in the future!

--- On Fri, 10/8/10, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] "Commercialization, Products and Patents"; was RE: [OT] proper subject line, please [was - Re: commercial products]
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, October 8, 2010, 11:13 PM

Rich,

This forum is not moderated (and therefore, you don't need mine, or
any body else's agreement to make a post.)
The only thing *a member must do himself or herself*, is to make sure
the subject being posted or discussed is consistent with the Ontolog
charter [1], and that the act is compliant with our contribution
guidelines [2] and IPR policy [3].

My earlier comment to Pavithra and Doug was merely a repeat of a
previous suggestion about keeping the subject line consistent with the
content of one's message.

Regards.  =ppy

References:

  [1] Ontolog charter -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidB

  [2] Ontolog member contribution guidelines -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
       and especially -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidLMK

  [3] Ontolog IPR Policy -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32
--


On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Commercialization, Products and Patents might be good single thread heading,
> Peter.  If you agree, I would like to point out the recent patent litigation
> decision which found in favor of David Gelernter, the computer science
> professor who was also into commercializing scientific visions.  Here is the
> reference about how he will receive about 10-20 million, bottom line, after
> his litigation team and company receive a 200-600 million dollar judgement
> that Apple has infringed his patent:
>
> http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202473037789&src="">
> =editorial&bu=IP%20Insider%20Alert&pt=IP%20Insider%20Alert&cn=Corporate%20Co
> unsel%27s%20IP%20Insider%20Alert%20-%2010%2F7%2F10&kw=Apple%20Scrambles%20to
> %20Limit%20Damage%20After%20Being%20Hit%20with%20Huge%20Patent%20Verdict
>
> His company, Mirror Worlds, and Gelernter as well are wikiped at:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; Pavithra Kenjige
> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] [OT] proper subject line, please [was - Re:
> commercial products]
>
> Pavithra, Doug and anyone similarly inclined ...
>
> ... if you are not talking about "commercial products" (which was the
> subject Ferenc Kovacs started this thread on), please modify the
> subject line of the message to something more appropriate, or merely
> start another thread, please.
>
> Suggestion: you might consider to just "forward" the later portion of
> this thread which pertains to your "new subject" and then start that
> as a "new" post with a new (and more appropriate) subject line. That
> way someone who is serious about tracing back to the origins of the
> conversation would be able to do it relatively easily.
>
> Thanks.  =ppy
> --


> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:07 PM, doug  foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sat, October 2, 2010 20:21, Pavithra said:
>>>
>>> If you try those visual thesaurus product,  for each word that I typed
>>> there were at least 8 - 24 meanings or ways of usage..
>>>
>>> That just tells me,  that most of the words in English language is used
> in
>>> many different ways.
>>
>> It tells me that English words are not good labels for terms in a general
>> ontology.
>>
>>> ...
>>> With so many different ways of referencing the same words, the resolution
>>> can get a little tough.  May be that is why they should use URI, more so
>>> because URN can be  URI too..
>>
>> Words are signs.  As you note above, a single word can denote a large
>> number of different things.  It would be appropriate for an ontological
>> term for a word to indicate in its name that the term designates a word.
>> It would probably be appropriate to designate the language of a word
>> in the name, as well, so that words that are spelled alike in different
>> languages are not considered to be the same word.  E.g., Sin_SpanishWord
>> and Sin_EnglishWord.
>>
>>> URI would give more of a granularity or clarity to the usage of the
>>> words..
>>
>> The usage of words is a different matter.  Usage suggests to me properties
>> such as conjugation, declension, tense, restrictions on direct and
> indirect
>> objects, vowel harmony, gender, and grammatical number.  Rules or
> relations
>> can be stated to specify such usage.
>>
>> Another matter is the meaning of words.  Again, relations are useful to
>> map individual words to each of their meanings.  Similarly, in specific
>> contexts other relations can specify preferred words to use for specific
>> meanings.
>>
>> For example, Cyc does this as follows
>>  in Mt: EnglishLanguageMt.
>>  (isa Human-TheEnglishWord Word).
>>  (denotation Bank-TheEnglishWord CountNoun 1 Bank-FinancialInstitution).
>>  (denotation Bank-TheEnglishWord CountNoun 2 RiverBank).
>>  (denotation Bank-TheEnglishWord CountNoun 3 ...).
>>  (denotation Bank-TheEngishWord Verb 1 HavingABankAccount). ...
>>  (denotation Bank-TheEngishWord Verb 4 BankingAFire).
>>
>> -- doug foxvog
>>
>>> Pavithra
>>
>>
>> =============================================================
>> doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>>
>> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
>> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
>>    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>> =============================================================

_________________________________________________________________
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



_________________________________________________________________
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>