I would like to get to know Matthew's point of view. I believe that I do
understand John's, up to a point. (01)
Sandy Klausner's CoreSystem is not well know, but those who have looked at
it (Richard Ballard, Mills davis and others) see precisely the mechanism
where by all programs woudl be reexpressed as part of an iconic programming
language - where the icons have a binary structure and thus the
modularization of complex programs become interoperable due to the
re-expression. (02)
Frankly I feel taht this has to happen and will happen at one point when the
notion of invariance is well understood and there exist university
curriculums that make ontology studies as common place as language studies
are now. (03)
Sandy's work assumes an evolution of an open set of icons, and thus the
loose coupling that John has spoken about is accounted for and depended on. (04)
Sandy's work is consistant with mine, but goes a lot further in actually
developing binary structure, operation system mechanisms such as memory
management and versions. (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|