[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable

To: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ceusters@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:09:55 EST
Message-id: <43bd1aa3.1b20.0@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (09)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>