[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Rule Interchange Format group

To: <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:22:44 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGIEDDHAAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Rick,    (01)

One point of the previous discussion is that one wanted a specification of
concepts without the first order logic.    (02)

Your ranking of best practices, in line with the Industries that are
dedicated to obtaining contracts with the government for IT services, is to
rank Topic Maps at the bottom because it does not make the mistake of
entangling complicated and often non-sensical "logic" into the ontology.    (03)

This is like saying, well I am no expert on Buddhism, but the guy that
founded it must have been off his rocker.    (04)

It is disconcerting that one can state principled points of discussion which
are simply ignored by a process that is going to do what it is going to do.    (05)

There is a sense that this type of government, controlled by the whims of
business processes, has to stop soon.    (06)

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    (07)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>