> "(5) As one means of interrelating the existing upper ontologies, we
> plan to explore the possibility of creating a common subset ontology
> that will be accurately translatable into each of the linked upper
> ontologies. (01)
This seems to be pretty much the text that was going around
2 weeks ago. It echoes again the idea of lets build another
ontology. This does not seem productive and echoes the
SUMO-list. There have been a number of other revisions that
came closer to a good aim. But these appear to be going lost
under the mail-volume. The habit of citing huge chunks
of previous emails with inline comments does not help this
IMO. (02)
I am not sure how to fix this. I do not think a common
subset ontology is necessarily a
sensible approach to establishing
interrelationships. One may emerge as a result of doing
the formaliation of the interrelationships but, then
again, it may not. If there is are mappings between
the component ontologies, this is not a problem.
Agreeing on common ontologies always has been a problem. (03)
Can we get the particular paragraph(s) versions that
have been proposed side-by-side to hammer them out?
Perhaps with paragraph numbers in the subject-line
or something? (04)
John B. (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|