Leo (01)
I agree. (02)
> I think the value is not in the particular upper ontology
> one chooses, but in the ontological analysis (even metaphysical
> analysis) that leads you to propose a given upper ontology. (03)
I quoted and cited the publications by Ingvar J. because (1) he put
more emphasis on the methods of analysis than on the details of
any particular ontology, (2) he covered a wide range of topics
that are important for any practical ontology, and (3) I found
the results of his analysis congenial. (04)
In fact, my only criticism was that he did not use more of Peirce's
semiotics. In an offline note, he said "I realized too late in life
how close to Peirce's views many of my own views are. This is the
reason why I seldom make explicit references to him." (05)
> Just because you can use logic to represent your analysis does not
> mean that logic per se has anything to add to the conversation. (06)
I agree that nearly all of the analysis takes place *before* you
sit down to write the axioms. However, the exercise of writing
axioms forces precision. It's too easy to cut corners and wave
your hands in ordinary language. (07)
That's one of my major complaints about most OWL ontologies.
The only thing that's formalized is the taxonomy. The critical
details are stated in hand-waving comments. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|