Leo, (01)
I'd be satisfied with that solution: (02)
> Personally, I think a better methodology for these problematic
> terminology aspects is to choose the disjunction:
>
> Class OR Type
>
> And move on. (03)
Some formalisms, such as OWL, happen to use the word
"class", other use the word "type", and still others
may represent either one with a monadic predicate. (04)
We can just let the tools that support those notations
use whatever terminology is common in the community
that uses those tools. The only thing that really
matters is the choice of a suitable underlying formalism,
such as Common Logic. (05)
For the recommended user notation, I would suggest a
version of controlled English. For example, see the
summary of Attempto Controlled English (ACE): (06)
http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/ace.htm (07)
As another very similar example, I wrote a grammar for
Common Logic Controlled English (CLCE): (08)
http://www.jfsowa.com/clce/specs.htm (09)
There are many issues concerning human factors and suitable
tools for supporting such languages, but writing a grammar
for such a language is a development project, not a research
issue. (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|