Ed,
>
> Chris Partridge wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > We seem to be going around in circles, maybe it is time to call a halt.
> >
> >
> Yes. It is time to stop talking about the philosophy of a
> units-of-measure ontology and start talking about an ontology. If there
> is a 3-D/4-D problem, we need to see an example of the axiomatic issues. (01)
I agree that we need to focus on issues that affect the development of an
ontology. Whether something is philosophy or not is irrelevant. (02)
I believe that there was an issue raised by Matthew responded to by Ingvar
and then responded to by me that shows how 3d/4d affects the development on
an ontology - and so passes the test we agree it needs to. (03)
>
> Otherwise, we are back in one of those endless and fruitless discussions
> that are typical of the forum exploder.
> I have reached the delete-without-reading stage.
>
> -Ed (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (05)
|