Doug, (01)
I think we are in agreement. Since you worked on Cyc and I was thinking
about Cyc's underspecified upper level, that is not coincidence.
(But I don't claim that I agree with every detail of Cyc.) (02)
JFS
>> But the details of how that symbol is related to the world will be
>> different for nearly every application in every branch of science,
>> engineering, business, etc. (03)
DF
> Alternatively, several types of identity, parthood, etc. could
> be well defined and well documented in the upper ontology, and
> different ones could be selected as appropriate in lower ontologies
> and KBs. These different types could be further specified in the
> appropriate microtheories. (04)
I agree. And as I said before, I like Ingvar J's observation that
the nontransitive part relations require a third argument to specify
the conditions why they are not transitive. (05)
In general, whenever you ask the question "Why?", your representation
will need one or more triadic relations. That's why nominalists
avoid asking "Why?" (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|