Rick, Gary, et al., (01)
I would be very happy with a working assumption along the following lines: (02)
RM> I definately don't mean a single, monolithic ontology. Words like
common,
> upper, and standard connote inflexible inheritance structures and
understate
> the significance of adaptability and flux in UF. The UF provides
modularity
> and parameterization over languages, logics, models, and theories. (03)
It's always more "fun" and a lot easier to pretend that the old systems
will
go away, but the amount of investment is enormous, and they take a very
long
time to fall into disuse. Any standard that ignores them has no chance of
success. (04)
GBC> There are many issues with this “enterprise” approach. One is that we
> don’t take on the real problem of understanding the differing semantics
> of the various applications/systems that make up the legacy systems. (05)
That is an important reason for focusing on the information flow. Two
people
or two computer systems can work together and communicate very well about a
particular task or application. (06)
Looking at the global picture of all systems for all time is impossible,
but it
is much more practical to look at the vocabulary they use to communicate
and
the minimal assumptions that each system makes about the vocabulary in the
messages it receives and generates. (07)
In any case, I'll be traveling for the next few days, and I might not have
a chance to respond to any further emails until late in the week. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|