Adam's phrasing of (01)
> (1) Introduce the three formal upper ontologies (02)
is not appropriate in that it suggests, by neglect or
design, that there are only three formal upper ontologies... (03)
This needs to be hit on the head sooner rather than later. (04)
The repeated suggestion: (05)
> Nicola Guarino - DOLCE (with Barry if desired) (06)
I do not understand, since Barry is not a developer
or supporter of DOLCE. Many significant aspects of BFO
need to be understood precisely in respect to how they differ from
DOLCE and certainly from SUMO. The writing of the above
parenthesis strongly suggests a need even among the
UO-developers to be clearer on this and so argues for
a further slot. "Nicola (with Aldo if desired)" might
come closer, although there are also interesting issues
to hear about the separate development trajectories
of DOLCE and DOLCE-lite; D&S extensions to DOLCE are also
certainly of much more fundamental interest than simply
'an add-on' to an existing ontology. (07)
I repeat my support also for Matthew West's point that
other ontologies get serious attention. (08)
There is also a lack of attention to methodology and
to design principles and tools for intergrating ontologies
and for designing/finding/using relationships between
ontologies. (09)
John B. (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|