RE: SUO: a silly question about the new modular architecture
Dear Adam,
I hate the word compromise. It means that you didn't really
understand the problem, and so you made a decision. In fact
the problem is usually still there, and will come back to
bite you later. So I see compromise as a last resort.
To me the pragmatic thing to do is to recognise what is the
same as the same, and recognise what is different as different.
Whether one considers the result as one ontology or two would
be rather a fine point in the end.
By the way if we did end up with something that really was
2 ontologies (or even 3) I would hail that as a triumph, compared
to say none or 20.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 06 September 2001 22:04
> To: Thompson, John A; SUO
> Subject: RE: SUO: a silly question about the new modular architecture
>
>
>
> John,
> I don't think this is a silly question. I'm inclined to
> think that
> there will be a big ripple effect which will mean we'll have two
> ontologies. The more divisions we have, the less of a standard we
> have. As you might guess, I'd rather that we find one
> reasonable compromise.
>
> Adam
>
> At 01:37 PM 9/6/2001 -0700, Thompson, John A wrote:
>
> >Forgive me if this silly question has been asked before.
> >
> >Is the theory that one could pick either the 3d or 4d
> spatio-temporal
> >module and then use the rest of the ontology modules as is
> (they will work
> >equally well with either the 3d or 4d module), or would all
> the other
> >modules in the system have to be encoded twice -- one
> version to work with
> >the 3d module, and another version to work with the 4d module?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >John Thompson
> >Boeing
>
> Adam Pease
> Teknowledge
> (650) 424-0500 x571
>