To: | ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion <ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | David Eddy <deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:31:47 -0500 |
Message-id: | <r02010500-1043-7F6653018D5B11DAB476000A95AEB2DA@[192.168.0.4]> |
Patrick - (01) > > The word "process" has been used, I think, in at least three different > senses in different ontologies, > (02) Why do we have to settle on a single meaning for a term/phrase? (03) Can't there be multiple meanings... like in the real world. (04) Only concession we'd need to make is to have a mechanism that EXPLICITLY states the context which then indicates which meaning is meant... just like in the real world. (05) Surely we're not going down the road of one word = one meaning across all contexts? (06) - David (07) _________________________________________________________________ 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 (08) |
Previous by Date: | RE: [ontac-dev] Axioms for Processes, John F. Sowa |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote, Smith, Barry |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote, Cassidy, Patrick J. |
Next by Thread: | RE: [ontac-dev] Type vs. Class -- Please vote, Cory Casanave |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |