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.
>
>
>
> CONFUSING STATEMENTS
>
> 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
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 (06)
|