Matthew West suggests a change in item 2 of the "conclusion in brief": (01)
"(2) Each of the existing upper ontologies differs in
specifics of implementation, but we all agree that use of
some formally defined common upper ontology is the most
cost-effective method for achieving scalable semantic
interoperability." (02)
[MW] Delete "common" (03)
[PC] the word "common" is needed to avoid giving the impression that
different developers can use different upper ontologies to achieve
semantic interoperability. to achieve "scalable semantic
interoperability" the sentence states that it is necessary for the
interoperating systems to use the same upper ontology - i.e. some upper
ontology in common. It does not state that all systems have to use the
same upper ontology, only those that wish to interoperate with each
other. It does not state or imply that there is only one "Common Upper
Ontology". (04)
I think the statement is more accurate leaving that word in. (05)
Pat (06)
Patrick Cassidy
MITRE Corporation
260 Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop: MNJE
Phone: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
Fax: 732-578-6012
Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|