Hi Adam, (01)
> 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 :-) (02)
and we are finding, with respect to DOLCE, that it is
precisely in the re-assembly that interesting results
come out. So, getting at those approaches to modularity
is what we would put at our top priority in Bremen at
present, because only then can we do precisely the
deep (hard) mappings that you were suggested could
not be done. Doing this for Cyc, looking at the ist
relation, and for SUMO, would I am convinced give
interesting and useful results. *Interpreting*
these modular ontologies as monolithic is the
problem, not that they are or are not monolithic. (03)
I also don't think that an integrated standard without
building blocks is the best way to go. (04)
Btw: did you catch that in my talk today that
we just converted all of SUMO+MILO (not sure why
we did all the MILO's too, guess we got
carried away) to CASL so that we can try pursuing
deep (hard) comparisons with our tools: first problem, making
the modularity explicit... It would be great
if you would find something interesting in there
too. (05)
Best,
John.
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|