On 9/19/2014 10:25 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Why just 'very underspecified'? Wouldn't it [EFT] be
> 'minimally underspecified'? (01)
Yes. It specifies nothing about the kinds of accounts other than
how to identify them and what operations on them are permitted. (02)
> There is no other knowledge built into EFT other than how to
> transfer money electronically, so bank account numbers,
> routing numbers, and so forth are specified in EFT. So adding
> anything at all to EFT would be nonminimal. (03)
Yes. That principle of minimal ontology supports interoperability
among systems of any kind -- legacy or the latest and greatest. (04)
Amazon.com can sell anything -- books, cameras, or dog food -- without
having an ontology that says anything about them other than their cost,
shipping requirements, and grouping with related products. A product
description is just uninterpreted text to be displayed on the web page. (05)
More detailed ontologies are only required when there is a need
to do more complex computation or reasoning. (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)
|