Dear Michael, (01)
I sympathise. It seems we have a name, now I'd just like to know
what for. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (04)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael
> Gruninger
> Sent: 23 January 2006 19:41
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Result of vote: Type
>
>
> Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
>
> >ONTACWG:
> > 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.
>
> >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:
>
> >One major purpose of the ONTACWG is to enable accurate and automatic
> >translation among different terminologies,
> >
>
> The question of the equivalence of a set of axioms is not a matter of
> opinion
> or personal taste.
>
> This seems to be a Working Group in which nobody wants to do any work.
>
> 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.
>
> We won't get very far if we continue to vote on personal
> preferences ...
>
> - michael
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologyTaxonomyCo
ordinatingWG (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|