Dear Michael, (01)
> The term 'common upper ontology' is ambiguous.
>
> It suggests an agreed standard.
> It can also mean an ontology that [happens to be] used by
> more than one
> application.
>
> Hence, it is ambiguous.
>
> Perhaps we can use the term 'shared upper ontology' for the
> latter, and
> use the term
> 'standard upper ontology' for the former.
>
> The problem with the term 'standard upper ontology' is that it could
> imply ONE standard, rather than one of a number of alternative
> standards. (02)
MW: Lets not get hung up on terms. They can mean what we define them
to mean.
>
> 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.
>
> WE are in the former situation now, and would like to move to
> the latter
> one. (03)
MW: This is the important bit, and I agree this is what we (well
I at any rate) want to do. (leaving aside that not all the ontologies
are actually formal standards).
>
> Mike
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|