Re: SUO: RE: Reductions Among Relations
I strongly endorse the following point by Lee Auspitz:
>There is a non-theological reason why in an SUO it is useful not to reduce
>betweennesses to dyads. On this list it has been addressed by Robert
>Kent. The "glue" among the elements of an ontology-- the relational
>betweenness-- is the basis of the artifact. Typically, what are called
>ontologies have varied interstitial relations ranging from
>narrower-broader terms to strict logical entailment grounded in
>well-developed theories. If one is to share ontologies and to traverse
>them, it will be important to specify these relations. If the SUO is
>conceptually disabled from doing so, it will not be "wrong", but its
>application will be limited.
To put it another way, one very important kind of information
that should be in all the documentation is the reason *why*
somebody did something or somebody else should care.
Inevitably, that kind of information has the form of a triad:
person A did (or should do) something B for the reason C.
John Sowa