Pat and Andrea, (01)
PC
> I think we can agree that there will be newly discovered aspects of
> reality that change our perceptions of what now seem to be primitive
> concepts. So the inventory of "primitives" may change over time. (02)
That depends on what you mean by change. If you select something like
the Longman's set of defining terms, then they can be relatively stable
-- but only because their meaning is very loosely defined. (03)
Andrea stated that point quite clearly: (04)
AW
> I was advocating under-specifying related (but not fundamental)
> concepts in your modules (such as the Location concept in the
> Person ontology example). Then combine modules that "complete" the
> under-specified concepts - where the modules that you include are
> consistent with your use cases and micro-theories ... (05)
The Schema.org terms are a large and growing set of useful but
underspecified terms. Right now, those terms are defined by English
texts that resemble OWL comments more than formal definitions. (06)
If you want people to pay more attention to the COSMO ontology, you
you might show how COSMO terms can improve the Schema.org definitions. (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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
|