[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontac-forum] Result of vote: Type

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Michael Gruninger <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:41:11 -0500
Message-id: <43D53157.3080403@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:    (01)

>   Thanks to all those who participated in unexpectedly vigorous
>discussion of this particular term.
> The final tally of preferences expressed by ONTACWG members is:
>    "Type"   11
>    "Class"  7
>   one vote was also cast for "Type or Class" (synonyms) and one for
>"Type and Class"
I am still a little dismayed by this strange methodology.
Math, logic, science, and engineering are not democracies;
we do not vote on the correctness of evolution :-) or adopt bylaws that 
ban the
use of irrational numbers.    (02)

>Therefore in the official FOL version of the COSMO, "Type" will be used
>to refer to those intensionally-defined groupings called:
>  Class in Ontolingua and Protege
>  Class in RDF and OWL
>  Class in SUMO
>  Collection   in OpenCyc
>  Universal    in DOLCE
>  Property in Ontology Works' IODE system
This still presumes that all of these concepts are equivalent,
which has not been shown. If they really are equivalent, then it's fine
to vote about which string of characters we will use to denote the concept,
but if they are not equivalent, then the following claim is illusory:    (03)

>One major purpose of the ONTACWG is to enable accurate and automatic
>translation among different terminologies, 
>    (04)

The question of the equivalence of a set of axioms is not a matter of 
or personal taste.    (05)

This seems to be a Working Group in which nobody wants to do any work.    (06)

Thankfully, Chris Menzel provided the SUMO axiomatization, and indicated
that a CL axiomatization of the RDF and OWL notions will be available in the
near future.
We need to formally evaluate the relationship between these axioms and
the axioms for OpenCyc Collection and DOLCE Universal; it would be
nice for people familiar with these two ontologies to post the relevant 
axioms.    (07)

We won't get very far if we continue to vote on personal preferences ...    (08)

- michael    (09)

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    (010)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>