Pat,
As stated, I have a preference for "type" - it is, to me, less confused.
BUT, there may be a more important factor and one that implies a prior
commitment - the semantic web. (01)
The semantic web (Essentially RDF) and to a lesser but still significant
extent OWL is a major factor in the industry. It is the leading factor that
is making Ontologies more mainstream. If there is any question that there
will, at least, be an OWL view of COSOMO then I am on the wrong list as my
concern is doing things that will be used and have an impact (in my
lifetime). (02)
I recognize the limits of OWL and the somewhat low opinion of it held by
sophisticated logicians such as are contributing to this list, and as I have
learned more I have started to share that opinion. But, broad acceptance of
COSMO will be a social and economic phenomena, not a logical one. (03)
In addition, there are some features of the semantic web that would be of
great benefit - it is the only logical system that I know of that that
provides an infrastructure for widely distributed and federated ontologies.
These capabilities could be applied to the semantics of CL just as well as
they apply to OWL. (04)
Given a lattice/modular approach there can be mechanisms for having an OWL
view with "modules" that depend on more sophisticated logics. If so, we can
have the best of both. If we adopt the axiomatically slim core John
suggests, it could be expressed in OWL. (05)
So perhaps it is important to understand how COSMO will be part of the
semantic web and in doing so not impose the confusion of an arbitrarily
different terminology. This would suggest "class" and the other OWL terms
be used where possible and that we not conflict with that terminology.
Therefore, reluctantly, that is my vote. (06)
-Cory Casanave (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cassidy, Patrick J.
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:45 AM
To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
Subject: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote (08)
I would like to get a sense of this group on a terminological question.
If you have any preference at all, please send me a note directly. (09)
The question was raised regarding what the ONTACWG community should
call those intensionally-defined groupings called: (010)
Class in Ontolingua and Protege
Class in RDF and OWL
Class in SUMO
Collection in OpenCyc
Universal in DOLCE
Property in Ontology Works' IODE system
--------------- (011)
The only contenders put forward are:
Type
Class (012)
if "type" then the subsumption relation will be subtype
if "class" then the subsumption relation will be subclass (013)
There have been a few expressions of support for each alternative.
It looks like time to resolve the question by vote. (014)
Unless you want to express some opinion regarding this to the list, it
will be best to send me the reply directly to avoid overloading. (015)
Pat (016)
Patrick Cassidy
MITRE Corporation
260 Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop: MNJE
Phone: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
Fax: 732-578-6012
Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx (017)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (018)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (019)
|