|From:||Chris Menzel <chris.menzel@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sat, 26 May 2012 18:23:57 +0200|
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Or, to sum up: there is no fact of the matter.
I think the thread could be useful for showing three things: (1) That including facts in an ontology could be useful for some purposes; (2) that constructing a feasible theory of facts is a difficult and complex matter that requires a great deal of research, including a survey of a very large body of literature and, hence (3) that it's fun but largely a waste of time — vis-á-vis advancing the state of the art of ontological engineering — to spend a lot of time composing list emails reporting the results of one's private introspections regarding the meaning of the word "fact".
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] [ontology-summit] Estimating number of all known facts, John F Sowa|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology, Rich Cooper|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Estimating number of all known facts, Pat Hayes|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology, Rich Cooper|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|