Further possible revision?... (01)
(2) Each of the existing upper ontologies differs in specifics of
implementation, but we all agree that use of a formally defined
common library of upper ontologies with explicit interrelations is
the most satisfactory method for achieving
semantic interoperability that can scale from a few applications to
large communities of diverse knowledge-based reasoning systems. (02)
Reasons: (03)
(i) while I agree that the debate between 'standard'/'common' upper
ontology and lattices is rather internal, the repercussions
are not. As soon as the notion of a 'common ontology' is put
forward, we can draw on decades of experience of not having
achieved one. To suggest, even indirectly by leaving open
possible interpretations, that this
group thinks that it is going to come
up with the one accepted theory of everything is not going
to sound serious. Once this interpretation is in place, it
is more difficult to backtrack and say, oh, actually we meant
something more sophisticated.... (04)
(ii) I would not like to be asked to prove that our approach
(I mean in Bremen) is maximally "cost-effective" at this point
in time! Depends precisely on the tasks, the level of
interoperability targetted, the results that will be reached
over the next 10 years with establishing common libraries, and and. (05)
John B.
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|