Building Rome one brick at a time: (01)
Will John accept for UF the following definition of part_of between
types A and B: (02)
A part_of B =def every instance of A is PART of some instance of B (03)
where PART is the usual, mereological, instance-level relation of
[proper or improper] parthood, as for instance between John's heart
and John's body?
At 04:01 PM 11/27/2005, you wrote:
>In developing a unified framework, we need to get all
>the major players in the ontology field to work together
>right from the beginning.
>Since all the major systems are currently incompatible
>with one another, that requirement imposes constraints
>on what is possible. Therefore, I propose the following
>The unified framework UF should be neutral with respect
>to all the major ontology projects that are currently
>under development. That implies:
> 1. Every system X that participates in the effort
> should support import and export operators for
> importing all of UF or any subset of UF to and
> from X.
> 2. UF should not contain any categories or relations
> that would create an inconsistency with any major
> system X; i.e., it should be possible to import
> *all* of UF into X without causing an inconsistency.
> 3. Importing UF into any system X and then exporting
> it from X should result in a version UF' that is
> logically equivalent to the original UF except for
> possible cosmetic changes in the formatting. Those
> changes should not cause any other system Y that
> imported UF' to generate inferences that differed
> from the inferences generated directly from UF.
> 4. Points #2 and #3 imply that the initial version of UF
> should avoid having a complex or detailed upper level,
> since most of the inconsistencies between any two
> ontologies result from problems at the top. It also
> implies that the system should contain a minimal
> number of relations whose definitions are not overly
> restrictive; i.e., it is better to have *too few*
> axioms than too many, since the more axioms there
> are, the more conflicts arise.
> 5. Point #3 implies that the emphasis of the UF should
> not be on rich inference capabilities, since those are
> usually highly context dependent and very likely to
> lead to inconsistencies. Therefore UF would be better
> suited to interchange and communication than to extended
> inference or problem solving. The extended inferences
> would be done by more specialized systems, which could
> add additional axioms of their own and use either
> logic-based methods or computational techniques.
> 6. UF should avoid features that limit its use to any
> particular notation or system of inference. OWL,
> for example, could be used to represent all of UF,
> but UF should not have any dependencies on any features
> of OWL -- either in logic or in formatting -- that are
> not available in all major systems of ontology.
>The details of these points are negotiable, but the fundamental
>principle of neutrality should be that UF shall be based on the
>minimal subset of features that do not create inconsistencies
>with any major ontology.
>To avoid slighting anybody, I'll avoid listing what ontologies
>should be considered "major".
>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/
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/