>BS> A small one is desirable (and I think unavoidable), capturing
> > for instance the distinction between monadic types and relations.
>I agree with Barry and Arun that the distinction between types
>and monadic relations is useful, but different people have different
>criteria for distinguishing them.
>BS> The idea is to do this [evaluation] scientifically, and
> > by a neutral body with no axe to grind.
>No human being, except perhaps a newborn infant, is ever neutral.
>Before accepting anything that has been done "scientifically",
>I'd like to see a clear statement of the science that is employed. (01)
So would I (but I am not involved, since I do have an axe to grind,
in the sense that is relevant here, namely I have my own preferred
upper-level ontology, and it would not make much sense for me to be
involved in setting up a framework for evaluating myself) (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/