Hi Pat, Brad & All: (01)
I missed the beginning of this conversation, but couldn't resist an
opportunity to jump into the mix. There's some common ground here
between Pat and Brad, but the conclusions we draw from the postings
below are significant. (02)
Pat: I don't interpret your posting to mean we should all use OWL.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're just saying
standardization within a specific language provides for convention, so
we can parse, validate and reason. (03)
Would you agree Brad's evolved system implies more than one language and
interpretation across languages? (04)
Brad: Your point regarding evolved sytems is an important one that
should be fully explored in the context of CUO-WG. I'd suggest the
language of complex adaptive systems provides for rich conversation in
the context of CUO: evolution, adaptation, surviveable, fitness,
generative, are all great discussion points typically missing here ... (05)
Scanning your prior postings, I'm more inclined to believe there's
progress at hand regarding automation and the human element in system
evolution is not one of intervention, but overcoming a knowledge barrier
in the philosophy and logic from which our systems are designed. (06)
PH> Hey, hold on. The point of OWL is to provide a
> standard for ontology information exchange, not a
> centrally planned ontological technology. There
> is no standard, centrally planned OWL reasoner or
> OWL tool kit: indeed, they should evolve in just
> the way you describe. But without having a common
> language to communicate in, the evolutionary
> process can't even get started. Just as you can't
> have much of a free market if there is no
> standard currency. (07)
BC >The point is designed systems and evolved systems arise from two ways of
>solving similar problems. Evolved systems ("free markets" for example)
often
>solve the hardest ones better, as the soviet economy's shot at central
>planning shows.
>It was also an evolved problem that has pretty much solved the N^2
problem of
>cross-domain ontologies between diverse real languages, a problem I
think we
>do agree won't be solved by centrally planned technologies like OWL.
(01) (08)
--
Best wishes, (09)
Rick (010)
email: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web: http://www.rickmurphy.org
cell: 703-201-9129 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (012)
|