To: | "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | "Peterson, Eric" <EPeterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 18 May 2006 09:04:06 -0400 |
Message-id: | <9BFFF3547B8B264891D4CF5C6E712512160B74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of John F. Sowa Sent: Wed 5/17/2006 6:57 PM To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Problems of ontology Azamat, David, and
Eric, Many of us (myself included) have spent the governments maney for years trying to put those axioms to practical use. I'm not sure that we have shown any real value to the government yet. Personally, I am currently getting much more job satisfaction out of working on the more ordinary task of laying the foundation suitable for axioms to adorn. I find the humble foundation work to abound with consuming technical challenges. So when I talk about working toward a merged upper model, I'm
attempting to have a much simpler discussion than I believe that you
are.
I claim that an ontological model suitable for merging
databases needs no baroque axioms. Where the need for fuller logic comes
in, I claim, is in mapping the database models to the core ontology hub
model. And then only occasionally.
Doug's engineer who wrote the OWL translation of Cyc, could have but didn't bother to translate or maintain the microtheory structure. I haven't heard any complaints about that. My claim is that microtheories are not needed for a database federating ontology. At best microtheories are arbitrary engineering conventiences. At worst they get in the way and bag up things that do not always belong together. Microtheories do not form anything but flat lattices unless an engineer specifically and intentionally designs them to subsume on another. Without intentional engineering, the likelihood of any two non-trivial microtheories subsuming one another staggers my poor imagination. This is the problem that I hit into when I think about a lattice of
theories. Maybe this timo I will converge to your point of view. I
suspect I'm missing something, as I am known to do. <snip> Best, -Eric Peterson _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontac-forum] RE: ontac-forum Digest, Vol 13, Issue 2, John F. Sowa |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontac-forum] Problems of ontology, Azamat |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontac-forum] Problems of ontology, Azamat |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontac-forum] Problems of ontology, John F. Sowa |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |