Dear Doug, (01)
> On Wed, February 13, 2013 05:35, Matthew West wrote:
> > ...
>
> > Chris Partridge made a plea for an architectural approach to
> > developing a top ontology, considering the ontological commitments.
> > There were two slides in particular that struck me.
> > The first listed typical ontological choices that a top ontology needs
> > to make,
>
> I would challenge the statement that a top ontology would have to make
these
> kinds of philosophical commitments. I think that John Sowa also
challenged
> this, but i'd like to explain in more depth.
>
> In most instances, the same (non-philosophical) conclusions can be made no
> matter which metaphysical commitment is made. Sometimes things need to be
> worded differently depending upon the metaphysics/philosophy chosen, but
that
> seems like an NL issue to me. If one is generating or interpreting NL,
one
> could use different modules for different philosophies. (02)
MW: But that is not the purpose of an integrating ontology. The purpose of
an integrating ontology is to bring the ground facts into a single view of
the world so that they can be analysed together. (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (07)
|