Me too. Slide #4 of Ray's presentation describes the "2007 Summit
Objective" [ which, I believe, motivates this discussion] as "...
define and agree to a systematic means of categorizing the many kinds
of things that are referred to as 'an ontology' ". Slide #2 lists
some of these as: "Thesaurus, Taxonomy, "Folksonomy", Conceptual
model, Formal logic model, Logical domain theory, XML Schema..."
Also note Web 2.0 W3C, and "more logos welcome" on the first slide
as an indication of the range of inclusion. Quite a stretch, but I
think that is the challenge... (01)
Doug (02)
On Jan 29, 2007, at 8:05 AM, andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: (03)
> I second Patrick Durusau's comment.
>
> Any *dimensions* we pick are only useful with respect to some selected
> purposes to which we may want to put ontologies. Abstract discussions
> about the properties of ontologies qua logical theory don't inform the
> issue of their intended applications.
>
> .bill
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?
> OntologySummit2007
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (05)
|