>
Just a small extra precisification of what Leo has to say, which I
hope he will accept: (01)
Instead of: (02)
>We have to make sure that we make distinctions precise in the
>ontologies we hope our systems, databases, and services will use. A
>real thing represented in an ontology will be 1) a real thing, or as we
>say, a symbol that represents the real thing, since we deal with
>information objects that stand in for the real objects, and then 2)
>have various ways of referring to that thing, including its multiple
>names and its very many descriptions. (03)
I would like: (04)
We have to make sure that we make distinctions precise in the
ontologies we hope our systems, databases, and services will use. In
particular we have to distinguish between: (05)
1) A real thing (process, event, ...) represented in an ontology. (06)
2) Its representation in the ontology - a symbol that represents the
real thing (since we are interested both in real objects and in the
information objects that stand for them). (07)
3)Various ways of referring to that thing, including its multiple
names and its very many descriptions. (08)
BS (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|