Agreed. Such a framework is needed. (01)
Mike (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 6:51 AM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: Re: [uos-convene] The Big Elephant... (03)
Mike and Nicola, (04)
Something more than just a UO is needed: (05)
MU>> True. The difficulty is if there is no explicit ontology
> or schema for a given application, then there is nothing that > can
be mapped TO a common UO. Hence, what is the value of > a UO in this
case? (06)
NG> Clearly almost zero, in this case. Maybe an UO can help
> "reverse engineering" the implicit conceptualization, though. (07)
As I've been saying from day 1, there is something more important than a
UO: a framework that can accommodate any and every ontology that anyone
has had, will have, or wants to have, and can relate them to one
another. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|