RE: [ontac-forum] Theories, Models, Reasoning, Language, and Truth

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

John    (01)

Regarding the discussion between John and Barry,    (02)

John said:    (03)

"I recommend
an approach that uses the metadata registry:  Develop a family of
theories, and post them in the registry.  Then communicating systems
can specify a predefined theory, if one is suitable, or propose that
one or more theories be combined and revised, if necessary.  That is
the point of the lattice of theories and the theory revision operators."    (04)

I assume, for clarification, that a single metadata registry would point to
resources which would express a range of "theories".    (05)

I assume that these theories might have terminological inconsistencies with
other theories, and that two theories might exist that were founded on very
different assumptions.    (06)

Business examples could be drawn on, but I think in biological examples more
often.    (07)

One theory might be consistent with the BFO (Basic Formal Ontology)'s
distinction between SPAN and SNAP.    (08)

A second theory might be consistent with a model similar to the ISO Gas and
Oil Part one ontology that Gary knows.    (09)

A third theory might be focused on emergent phenomenon and be able to give
language to function structure degeneracy.    (010)


Is this what you mean?    (011)




_________________________________________________________________
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    (012)