Re: SUO: RE: RE: RE: SUO Comment #2 -- Proposed resolution
>
>
> Matthew says:
>
> I agree with Pat that we should have a target of being able to describe
> *all* lower level concepts, with the acceptance that we are unlikely to
> succeed initially (if ever), that further means we need to be concerned
> with the update of the SUO as well as its initial fill.
> ---
>
> We seem to be at an impasse. This seems completely wrong to me, and
> Chris Menzel agrees. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what more I can say
> to move the discussion forward. I don't think that agreeing to
> disagree will help much either.
> Mike
From my reading of Chris Menzel's reply, there seems to be some
extra meaning to 'defining' all lower terms, beyond the meaning with
which I use for the verb 'define'.
Perhaps this is where the impasse lies. Do you use this verb in
a compatible way to that of Chris's ?
Chris Menzel stated:
> By my lights, the SUO will (among other things) provide the uniform,
> standardized conceptual backdrop necessary for the broader
> understanding, exploitation (via, e.g., automated reasoning), and
> exchange of these more specialized ontologies. It is not a theory
> of everything.
I have no problem with this statement. I'm not sure what the difference
is between this and Matthew's statement "we should have a target of being
able to describe *all* lower level concepts".
Shouldn't a "uniform, standardized conceptual backdrop" be capable of
doing this ?
Mike stated:
> You want it to be all the lowest level primitives from which
> anything can be created.
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems all wrong to me.
Could you, Mike, elaborate on some of these lowest level primitives that
you feel should not be included in the SUO?
This might help in understanding where the impasse is.
Regards,
David