[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Quote for the day

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:17:49 -0500
Message-id: <4D2499AD.6020102@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Anders,    (01)

I like that definition of 'ecosystem':    (02)

> In this case it means a community of interacting organisms
> (organization/etc) that use tools (signs/ontologies/models/etc.)
> they own/use/manage/adopt/adapt/etc to influence themselves
> or other organisms or objects.  The signs/ontologies/models/etc.
> are related statically and/or procedurally. The community has
> not been assigned a purpose from the outside and is not under
> anyone's sole control.
> ...
> I dont think I use the term in the sense OMG use it.    (03)

I have no idea what the OMG sense may be.    (04)

>> Interoperability does not require a single universal ontology,
>> but an ecosystem of ontologies at different levels of detail
>> and with different ways of specializing that detail for different
>> purposes.  The ecosystem also requires systematic methods for
>> relating, detecting, negotiating, and resolving any differences
>> or conflicts that may arise.    (05)

> yes sounds about right...
> an ecosystem is open ended in the sense that it not under anyone's
> sole control...    (06)

>> I like ['ecosystem'] better than Pat's term 'foundation'.    (07)

> I dont think they are in opposition but rather complementary ideas.    (08)

I agree that the ideas are complementary.  But the term 'foundation'
suggests that there is some privileged starting point and some person
or committee that decides what the foundation should be.    (09)

The lattice operations allow the structure to emerge from the
collection of ontologies in the "ecosystem".  There will certainly
be some terms that are closer to the top of the lattice, and one
could call them "primitives".  But those primitives emerge from
the collection of ontologies -- they are not imposed by a committee.    (010)

> And yes, the ecosystem view of ontologies are very much aligned
> with the L-theory.    (011)

I'm glad we agree.    (012)

John    (013)

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    (014)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>