[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontac-forum] What should be in an upper-level ontology

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ken Ewell <mitioke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 00:26:17 -0400
Message-id: <44713D69.4000200@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
JS> Words must be related to ontologies, but that mapping is a complex 
many-to-many [or one?] relationship between the words of any natural 
language and the categories of an ontology.    (01)

No doubt. Words must be related to ontologies. It is many to many and 
one to one. depending only on the given.    (02)

> JS > .any upper level should be as *neutral* as possible. The upper 
> levels should have very few axioms.
No doubt. I did not offer axioms in the previous post. It does not mean 
I do not have them.  Consider an axiom that defines a set, named, 
appropriately, {self, others} and what falls between.    (03)

> JS > A truly neutral upper level should avoid any commitment to what 
> is considered essential vs. what is considered accidental.
> JS > the upper level is much less important than the mid and lower 
> levels. Don't waste more time and money on things that don't matter.
I do not know exactly.  My experience is that I was given the upper 
level while the lower levels, though muddled,  were made to experience 
and made to fit, as it were.  Just the knowledge of the upper level made 
things in the lower and middle layers fit -- that, in my mind, may not 
have fit before; I learned.  I did not alter my way of thinking in that 
I adapted to new facts.    (04)

-Ken Ewell    (05)

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    (06)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>