Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies

[Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just a quick response to one point.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 3:43 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AH

> the introduction of a novel conflicting core ontology should have
> a high cost.

That is like saying that any scientist who comes up with a new
theory must pay a large fee to get published.  A much better option
is freedom of speech, but nobody is required to listen.  That's
what we have today:  anybody can design a new operating system,
programming language, or whatever.  But in practice, the majority
of people prefer to stick with their old familiar systems --
unless the new one is spectacularly better.

I believe the intent of this statement has been misinterpreted, I should have been clearer. 

Cost in this context means that changing and admitting a novel core ontology should not be a trivial procedure. Of course everyone is free to articulate whatever they wish.When such a representation is at odds with the canon and represents a significant deviation from it - then it's addition to the shared computational conceptualization should be well justified.

I believe this mirrors current practice in terms of the admission of a novel interpretation within a field.

Best,
Ali
_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)