On 5/31/2013 2:56 PM, William Frank wrote:
> a high level, highly underspecified ontology is not useful
> ***in itself**. It is a framework to start from, and extend
> in different directions in different domains. (01)
Yes. The top level is primarily useful for classification. (02)
The detailed reasoning is done in the more specialized and
more detailed mid levels and lower levels. (03)
> Consider marriage. People in different cultures have very
> different mores involving marriage. (04)
You don't even have to consider exotic cultures. Just look
at the laws in the various states of the US. They all have
slight differences that can be critical. (05)
An attorney who passes the bar exam in one state has to take
a new exam before practicing in another state. (06)
> There are some sticky points with this, such as the fact that
> many concepts drift so that at one end, there is nothing in common
> with another use at the other end of the drift (07)
I wouldn't say "nothing in common". There is usually enough
in common for a preliminary classification. But the detailed
reasoning has to be done in the more specialized theories
(or microtheories). (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)
|