[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Chemistry - foundation and method

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: matthew lange <mclange@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:44:47 -0700
Message-id: <CAKJtittd8r1+_dN274vuV8eguThw0nTujKzz6WJ9H8-_P1i+yQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I have lurked on this list for some time, and enjoy reading most posts.  

While I would like to enjoy your posts, your abstract ether is rather painful to wade through for those of us who make a living by considering and responding to the information and opinions of many. 

The list becomes less valuable if we stop reading it because the time it takes ceases to be worthwhile.

If you have a message to convey, I would suggest an email with no more than five concise sentences that express the specifics of your intent.

Let succinctness be thy friend: less is more here.



On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Christopher Spottiswoode <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good morning to anyone of the silent majority still listening, also to
Pat and Rich on the off-chance they've given me just one further
opportunity to get a word in.

I apologize to all for having been so lengthily narcissistic in my posts
so far, and so prickly in response to Pat.

I now assume that Pat's and Rich's steps do broadly represent some still
hidden consensus.

So I shall proceed in this series of posts by being as
technically-detailed as I at the time believe is appropriate to a Grand
Challenge specification.  Necessarily, many features and aspects will
demand extended explanation and justification, but each instance will be
in a context hopefully already more meaningful to you.

However, please do allow occasional repetitions of points I've already
made.  I suspect that will especially occur as we build on the technical
view and consider some suggestions for soundbites, elevator pitches,
etc, for the more public phases of the Challenge.

Right now, and following the subject-line of this thread, I start by
asking you to bear in mind the relevant summary paragraphs from my
starting post in this thread:

> The foundation is an awareness of the infinite complexity of the real
> world as the given for the process of conceptualization and
> ontology-formation.
> The method is simply to take fuller cognizance of the usual patterns
> and anti-patterns in that process.  So it's all very mainstream.  But
> we _can_ enhance and project the lessons!  (Hence also the "Ride The
> Mainstream!" slogan I've been brandishing since March 1990.)

There are many very technical implications of those seemingly so soft

I shall now get to work on the first technical post as promised.  I aim
to let you have it by the end of tomorrow.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
To: "Christopher Spottiswoode" <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Chemistry - foundation and method

Goodbye, Christopher.


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)

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