RE: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too.

["Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The term 'common upper ontology' is ambiguous.    (01)

It suggests an agreed standard.
It can also mean an ontology that [happens to be] used by more than one
application.     (02)

Hence, it is ambiguous.      (03)

Perhaps we can use the term 'shared upper ontology' for the latter, and
use the term 
'standard upper ontology' for the former.    (04)

The problem with the term 'standard upper ontology' is that it could
imply ONE standard, rather than one of a number of alternative
standards.    (05)

There is another distinction:
* multiple independently developed and unrelated standard upper
ontologies.
* a group of standards that is a coherent package, with the
relationships between the different ones clearly identified.  Whether or
not they were originally developed independently is a matter of
historical interest.    (06)

WE are in the former situation now, and would like to move to the latter
one.    (07)

Mike    (08)


 _________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit    (09)