>JS> I believe that time and process belong in
>the core as *underspecified* categories and that detailed methods
>for reasoning about them should be in problem-oriented modules. (01)
> 1. You can think of the core as a very general theory high up
> in the lattice. (02)
So it will contain axioms, yes?
A theory must have axioms (propositions). It cannot be a simple list of names. (03)
> 4. The problem-oriented modules are much more specialized
> in terms of detailed axioms, but many of them can be
> used across many different hubs. An example would be
> axioms for 4D spacetime vs. 3+1 D space and time. (04)
One might almost say that axioms expressing the 4D character of
spacetime should belong to the care. And similarly for the axioms
expressing the 3D character of space, and the 1D character of time. (05)
> 1. A core ontology that is mostly a neutral taxonomy with very
> few detailed axioms, and those axioms should not make any
> commitments that would conflict with any reasonable scientific
> or engineering principles or techniques. (06)
The taxonomy itself will yield many is_a axioms, yes?
Can we start to work out what the terms of the taxonomy should be.
Just a few. perhaps, to get us going. And what the corresponding
axioms will be? (07)
BS (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)
|