> JFS>> The VIM document is consistent with those upper
> >> ontologies [Cyc, SUMO, DOLCE, BFO, etc.].
>
> EB> Which ones? That is one of the questions I was hoping
> > certain experts would actually answer. (01)
Doug, Adam, Nicola, Barry and Pat ...
This is crucial ... do (either one of) you have an answer? (02)
Thanks in advance. =ppy
-- (03)
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:28 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ed,
>
> I think that we seem to agree more than disagree:
>
> JFS>> But this thread has also uncovered many important issues
> >> that require clarification. If we put all the qualifications
> >> and clarifications in a single document, it would get into all
> >> or nearly all the topics covered by a large upper ontology.
>
> EB> I hope not, but I certainly agree that we don't want to engineer
> > all the concepts that have been discussed on this exploder. At
> > the rate we are going, it will take us another year to construct
> > a bare bones units ontology.
>
> I certainly would not want the UoM to morph into YAUO (Yet Another
> Upper Ontology). It should avoid anything that could be inherited
> from AUO (Any Upper Ontology) or covered by SOSO (Some Other
> Specialized Ontology).
>
> JFS>> How many modules should we have?
>
> EB> One. When we have demonstrated that we can do that, we can
> > consider expanding the scope.
>
> I agree that the UoM should consist of one module. If at all
> possible, I would hope that the considerations for using the
> UoM in designing chips or bridges could be put into a SOSO
> devoted to engineering -- or better yet to multiple SOSOs
> for microelectronics, civil engineering, etc.
>
> Somebody who uses the UoM for selling potatoes or pumping
> gasoline should not have to wade through a SOSO devoted to
> all the engineering considerations for those subjects.
>
> JFS>> The VIM document is consistent with those upper
> >> ontologies [Cyc, SUMO, DOLCE, BFO, etc.].
>
> EB> Which ones? That is one of the questions I was hoping
> > certain experts would actually answer. I have seen a great
> > deal of chaff go by without any of that kind of wheat in it.
>
> I had hoped they might chime into the UoM discussions,
> but they're probably not listening. If they have serious
> inconsistencies with it, then anybody who uses their
> ontologies will run into serious incompatibilities.
>
> Therefore, I would claim that any upper ontology that is
> used by the same people who use VIM (directly or indirectly)
> will either be compatible with VIM, become compatible with
> VIM, or be rejected by anybody who uses VIM.
>
> Therefore, I believe that it is safe to assume that making
> the UoM compatible with VIM will make it compatible with
> any upper ontology used by people who use VIM.
>
> EB> If someone has looked at the quantity models in multiple
> > upper ontologies, we would all appreciate a pointer to the paper.
>
> Amen.
>
> John
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (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)
|