>>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
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 (03)
|