Dear John, (01)
MW
> I'm assuming you happen to have two bits of ontology that are
> pre-existing and that you want to make use of, that happen to have
> different upper level ontologies. I haven't come across an example
> either, but I guess it could happen. (02)
Again, look at Schema.org. Its upper level is very underspecified, but it's
widely used. Users who share information expressed in the categories of
Schema.org make no assumptions about a more detailed upper level. Most of
them probably have no upper level. (03)
[MW>] I find it interesting that it seems that minimising the axioms in your
ontology seems to help for exchange of information. Yet without axioms you
have nothing to reason over. Obviously the best level to state an axiom,
when you state it, is the one highest level at which it always applies, and
not just in the current application. (04)
Regards (05)
Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
+44 750 338 5279 (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|