Hi:
I discovered, modeled, and informally
published them in the early 1980’s, and personally have been using them
since then. I informally published them on the Internet in 1994, at http://one-world-is.com. This is the source
for what I’m asserting as the “General Ontology” - it is good
enough (as a hub/core/general ontology) to provide a general-use knowledge-base
(i.e., from an endeavor’s framework (as an ontology) yielding a model/architecture)
and provide the foundation for role-based-security and virtual applications for
the subjects modeled within it.
When looking at the range of Ontologist-orientations
present in this forum, I see two main axes of divergence. I call one the “Utility”
axis, which ranges from “Philosophy” on one end to “Pragmatic”
on the other. The other I call the ‘Correctness” axis, which
ranges from “Purist/Final/100% correctness” on one end to “Sufficient/Practical/Workable
correctness” on the other.
The General Ontology I’m offering may
not be philosophically pure, but it is practically sufficient. I would
submit that ONTAC is chartered to produce Pragmatic and Sufficient ontology/semantic/taxonomy
solutions for SICoP and FEA/CIOC/AIC, and not get bogged down into the
Analysis-Paralysis of ontology Philosophy and Purity.
Roy
From:
ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of psp
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005
10:26 AM
To: ONTAC-WG
General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Some
thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources
When did these "good enough" ontologies become
available?