It seems to me that to perform the tasks suggested by FK here is to
ignore a long and rich history of conversation in this and related
forums that go back to before the days of google.com. It further
seems to me that JFS has been arguing that there is no *ideal*
(emphasis on that word: ideal) upper ontology, which does not deny the
viability of *some* upper ontology for *some* particular application. (01)
When FK suggests that it is possible for some entity to, in his words,
"taking each term under scrutiny and declaring whether accepted or
refused" -- that is, as Patrick Durusau and I described the game, play
Hobson's Choice in an ONTOLOG conference call many years ago [1], he
is declaring that someone will play God for all who would use the
result. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that's not a
tenable solution for some applications. (02)
I have to wonder just how many times we need to revisit this topic.
Any reasonable query at your favorite search engine will surely
suggest to any who try it that this is a well debated topic, not
really worthy of continued conversation. Either you accept that there
is no *ideal* upper ontology and remain happy that you are free to
create whatever upper ontology suits *your* needs, or you don't.
Nobody is going to be sold on the notions of others in this matter;
the logic behind the debate is well documented. (03)
Finally, I do not deny that it's a useful exercise to take apart
available ontologies and describe their weaknesses. Just don't do it
here; the subject line doesn't invite that conversation. (04)
Jack
[1] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_04_27 (05)
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:01 PM, FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Avril,
> Very nice point, thank you.
> So instead of claiming that we have a number of upper ontologies none of which
> is the best and the most approrate, we should start anaylsing and comparing
> those already in use and point out any shortcomings. Therefore we likely need
>to
> agree through accepting definitions of whatever term we use in a step by step
> fasion taking each term under scrutiny and declaring whether accepted or
>refused
> and on what grounds. This is a process of alignment of paradigm or terminology
> used to express our concepts that are not accessible otherwise.
>
> Regards,
> Ferenc
> "our attention becomes structured by external demands. In more intimate
> encounters, the level of both challenges and skills can grow very high. Thus,
> interactions have many of the characteristics of flow activities, and they
> certainly require the orderly investment of mental energy. The strong effects
>of
>
> companionship on the quality of experience suggest that investing energy in
> relationships is a good way to improve life." Mihály
>
>Csíkszentmihályi"http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199707/finding-flow?page=3
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|