Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: Organisational/Ontological Levels


Dear Adam et all, 
	I agree with this approach, since it has the potential to result in
a good, pragmatic framework. 

	I am a bit daunted by the Ontologies I have been pointed to, since
they are all text listings which print out to as much as a ream of paper
(literally). I would guess that means somewhere around 3,000 items. 

	Are there any diagrammatic representations available to view them
and see what inherent structure there is there? 

	I'm sure there is a fair bit, but my real desire is to use the
nature and extend of the structure as part of a relative assessment and
ranking process, as well as possibly to identify any possible gaps or
shortcomings, etc. 



Cheers					Graham Horn

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 
================================================
Phone:   	02.6244.1094  
Fax:        	02.6244.1166  
E­mail:   	Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>


-----Original Message-----
From:	John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@west.poly.edu]
Sent:	Friday, July 07, 2000 6:17 AM
To:	Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com; apease@teknowledge.com;
standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject:	Re: Organisational/Ontological Levels


Adam,

I think we basically agree on the general principles.  For the purpose
of this mailing list, we should feel free to bring any relevant notions
into the discussion, and we shouldn't have to repeat them in everybody's
pet notation.

But the final standard should be expressible in many different ways
to many different audiences.  The fact that we might digress into fine
points of logic, physics, or philosophy should not require the Sesame
Street version to repeat all that material in the same jargon.

Bottom line:  The final result should be as simple as possible.  But the
intermediate discussions might get into some murky depths.

John