[Top] [All Lists]

[ontac-forum] John's proposal

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:44:14 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGOEHFGOAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The bottom line is very clear and I agree.    (01)

John said:    (02)

"Therefore, UF should be very rich in types, but very, very
poor in axioms.  But any serious inferencing (which may be
logic based, statistical, computational, or whatever) will
require much more.  But every system that adds more does
so in ways that are incompatible with some other system."    (03)

I have a resource that would remove the OWL axiomatization and move use back
to RDF ...    (04)

How do you see the types beings expressed, "as RDF statements" purely with
some small set of constraints?    (05)

I am very interested in this proposal.    (06)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (07)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>