|To:||"ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||"Cassidy, Patrick J." <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:53:25 -0400|
I suspect that discussion of the technical details of the top-level ontology would not be of interest to the general list, and could be conducted via a specific mailing list including all of those who are interested. I am going to post a request for all those who want to participate in (or just lurk and listen to) the discussion of the Common Semantic Model, please let me know and I will generate an inclusive mail list. Anyone can join in or drop out at any time, and we will post updates whenever any suggestions are made that the full ONTACWG might want to consider. Jus to keep down the mail volume that some would not be interested in. On the other hand, if a majority of us think that the technical discussions should be posted to the general list, they will be.
But to address the general question raised:
>> . After all years ago the field had already discussed the challenge of type hierarchies of one ontology splits the concept Object into Physical-Object and Abstract-Object, but another decomposes Object into Decomposable-Object, Nondecomposable-Object, Conscious-Being, and Non-Conscious-Thing.
These dichotomies are not logically incompatible, and can be accommodated in a single logically consistent ontology. The only glitch is that, if each dichotomy is intended to be a covering (includes all possible instances), then every class that is created would have to be specified as a subclass of one of the two possibilities in each top-level covering, adding to the work of building the ontology. This is a nuisance, but quite straightforward technically. If there are legacy systems that require such top-level coverings, we can handle it.
At that level, the challenge is sociological, not technical.
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/ To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/ Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/ Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[ontac-forum] Building on the sholders of other ontology work, Gary Berg-Cross|
|Next by Date:||RE: [ontac-forum] Denise's point challenging/test the basic assum ption that the current ontology model is sufficiently well developed and tested to use as a baseline, Warzel, Denise (NIH/NCI)|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontac-forum] Building on the sholders of other ontology work, Gary Berg-Cross|
|Next by Thread:||RE: [ontac-forum] Denise's point challenging/test the basic assum ption that the current ontology model is sufficiently well developed and tested to use as a baseline, Warzel, Denise (NIH/NCI)|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|