Barry, (01)
The primary difference between us is in the number of axioms
we require for *all* ontologies that adhere to a proposed
standard and the number that are moved into optional modules. (02)
I have no quarrel with those categories: (03)
>Independent Continuant
>Dependent Continuant
>Process (aka Occurrent) (04)
But I would object to requiring that *all* theories agree on
what kinds of entities belong to the continuant set or the
occurrent set. I don't believe it is a fundamental distinction
that must be enforced at the upper level. In fact, if you look
at Cyc's upper level, they go through a lot of complexity in
order to support both kinds of inferences for many entities. (05)
Instead of requiring the complexity of Cyc's upper level, I
would prefer to push that distinction down to an optional
problem-oriented module. (06)
There are many other issues involved, and I am about to leave
on a short trip. I might not have a chance to get back to
this discussion for a while. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|