[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontac-forum] Adequate ontologies and better ontological analysis fo

To: nicolas.rouquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:39:42 +0100
Message-id: <>

>>I accept all of the above, and Gary is right that many of my 
>>remarks thus far in this forum have been in their spirit. I think I 
>>would understand 4 in terms different from Gruber himself, however. 
>>The job of ontology is to unify communities with heterogeneous data 
>>and information.
>I am puzzled by the next statement that is somewhat counter-intuitive to me.
>>If we enforce minimum ontological coherence on what they do, then 
>>this would mean enforcing no constraints at all, and then we end up 
>>with heterogeneous data and information in separate bags 
>>(namespaces, I think W3C calls them; it seems to think that they 
>>are good things for ontological purposes; I think they still leave 
>>us in a bad position regarding the problem of unification).
>What would be an example of "minimum ontological coherence" to you 
>that would result in "no enforceable constraints at all" ?    (01)

Doing nothing at all!
BS    (02)

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    (03)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>