|
Matthew,
That's sound advice, I'm sure, and I appreciate
your giving it.
I'll do my best to take it to heart.
Many thanks!
Christopher
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:44
AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology
Chemistry - foundation and method
Christopher,
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.
Best,
matthew
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
positions.
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.
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:27 AM
Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Ontology Chemistry - foundation and
method
Goodbye, Christopher.
Pat
_________________________________________________________________
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
|