Paola, (01)
I agree that some updating and expansion is important,
but all of that should be in the commentary. The
definition should be short, sweet, and sufficiently
general to cover what is being done in both philosophy
and computer science. (02)
> I do not disagree with Webster, yet I think it's time
> to update/expand those entries... (03)
Please note all the emails that have stuffed our mailboxes
during the past two days. This group can get bogged down
in dozens of emails about just a single world. (04)
That definition from 1971 covers all of the ontologies that
are being developed and used in computer systems today: (05)
2. a theory concerning the kinds of entities and specifically
the kinds of abstract entities to be admitted to a language
system. (06)
Of course, we are doing much more today than anybody was
doing in 1971. The commentary should describe those
developments. The definition should be short, clear, and
independent of any current technology. That is the best
way to ensure that it will continue to be true of any
future technology. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (09)
|