I am strongly in favor of an approach along the lines
that Gunther's proposes: (01)
GS> So, you probably need to exclude defining properties from
> your scope and begin with kind of quantity. But I suggest
> you even take kind of quantity as a primitive and focus
> only on dimensions. (02)
The UoM ontology should be compatible with a very wide range
of incompatible ontologies that people have developed or
proposed. If we start defining too many upper-level concepts,
we will end up with one more incompatible ontology. (03)
Therefore, I propose that we take the terms that lead to
endless rounds of discussion and declare them to be
undefined primitives. That would allow them to be linked
to a wide range of different upper levels that other people
have proposed. (04)
Fundamental principle: Detailed axioms and definitions create
incompatibilities and inconsistencies. Never define anything
that you don't absolutely need for the problem at hand. (05)
This strategy is one more example of my general approach
to axioms: (06)
When in doubt, throw it out. (07)
John Sowa (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|