[ontac-forum] minimal ontology for a lattice

["Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris    (01)

you have said:    (02)


Human reality is no more relevant to theoretical computer science than
it is to quantum electrodynamics.    (03)

and    (04)

The relevance of Gödel to modern physics is questionable, but be that as
it may, the mathematical foundations of modern physics have nothing to
do with the rather straightforward issues I was addressing.    (05)

****    (06)


I would like to shift the discussion to:    (07)

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/312.htm    (08)


I have to agree that you, Chris, have understood your point of view well and
that there is an extensive formal literature about the things you mentioned.    (09)

I do not like the discussion that is occuring but I have to agree that there
are some points that are being exposed.  So I am grateful.    (010)

Chris said:
It sounds like all you are talking about is whether one can isolate the
non-reserved vocabulary in an OWL ontology.  Of course that can be
"removed" for editing and viewing.  Is *that* all you mean?
<end quote>    (011)

and yes, this is all I mean.    (012)

But in the context of creating a minimal ontology for a lattice, this
isolation of the vocabulary specific to a minimal set of concepts is a step
that has to occur within a community agreement.    (013)







_________________________________________________________________
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    (014)