ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] FW: [ontolog-invitation] Invitation to a brainstor

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:41:39 -0800
Message-id: <AANLkTikAfANYbPkR0Eg8hOjUXvt2prJScKJLsUy5SFw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Folks,    (01)

Ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2010-12/msg00095.html#nid05    (02)

This is the type of conversation that maybe more suited for
[ontolog-forum] rather than for "Making the case for Ontology" of
OntologySummit2011.    (03)

If you guys are (still) interested, would Barry (who started the
argument) and all please move this debate to [ontolog-forum] please.    (04)

I did propose doing a debate, as part of the summit process this time,
but that is for making the case for (or against) "Ontology as a whole"
... not for a particular ontology, nor a particular language or
technology, per se.    (05)

Thanks in advance for the understanding and support.    (06)

Regards.  =ppy
--    (07)


On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Matthew West wrote:
>>> [BarrySmith]  -1 for 15926, with arguments:
>>> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/west.pdf
>>
>> [MatthewWest]  Which are answered in:
>> 
>http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/documents/Reponse%20to%20Barry%20Smith%20Comments%20on%20ISO%2015926.htm    (08)

> [ChrisMenzel]  Barry's criticisms of the use of a non-well-founded set theory 
>like Aczel's AFA are on the money. He notes that it is a greatly overpowered 
>for the needs of the document; it entails, among other things, the entire 
>massively infinite hierarchy of  transfinite numbers.  (How massive?  So 
>massive that there is no transfinite number big enough to number them.) 
> Moreover, ironically, AFA and its like are in a sense underpowered as well 
>for the given task. Notably, as I understand the document, THING is itself a 
>class that contains, well, everything.  The existence of such a class 
>(understood as a non-wf set) is flatly inconsistent with non-wf ZF spinoffs 
>like AFA.
>
> Bottom line (as John Sowa likes to say): The underlying class theory of the 
>document needs to be thrown out and rethought completely.
>
> Chris Menzel    (09)


On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> +1 on ISO 15926, with counterarguments provided if required :-)
> Pat    (010)

_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (011)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>