At 02:17 PM 3/14/2006, John A. Bateman wrote:
>>Candidate conceptual building blocks can now be found in
>>several upper ontologies, reflecting decades of research and
> > as 
>>Several candidate upper ontologies are available,
>>reflecting decades of research and development.
>Clarification: the point of the 'building blocks'
>was precisely to get around and away from
>'monolithic' ontologies. The *candidate*
>building blocks should include theories
>of time, of participation, of constitution, etc.
>rather than a single ontology. (02)
Well, that may be someone's goal, but it's not mine. In fact, the
characterization of "monolithic" ontologies seems to me just
pejorative since SUMO, Cyc and DOLCE all have their different
approaches to modularity. I don't think we need building blocks, but
rather an integrated and common standard. Building blocks require
further assembly :-) (03)
>>Those that are not currently publicly available should be made so.
>Nice. But enforceable? (04)
Probably not, but I was just attempting to clarify the existing
statement that appeared to imply that none of the existing candidate
ontologies were already completely public. The SUMO products are. (05)
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
>To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (07)
http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools (08)
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 (09)