SUO: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
>John,
> First, please let's acknowledge the validity of each others'
>views. There have been serious arguments for what you term the
>monolithic approach.
Adam, could you cite those arguments? You have always steadfastly
CLAIMED that a monolithic appraoch was of utility, but the only
actual ARGUMENT I am aware of is the observation that CYC uses that
approach, which is taken as a kind of existence proof that it is
possible. And that, pathetic as it is, is the only actual argument I
have heard you, or anyone, use.
This is not to impugne your right to hold to your opinion, Adam, to
emphasise the point. The issue is over "serious arguments", not
opinions.
> If more people on the SUO list want a modular approach then they
>should be free to pursue that. That is what I'm proposing, that
>each set of people pursue the approach they're interested in instead
>of trying to force their views on each other.
Since the basic issue seems to me to be that the 'monolithic'
approach amounts to the imposition of a single view, and the
'modular' appraoch seeks to find a mechanism to accommodate several
views without trying to force one of them on the others, this
proposal of yours has a rather hollow ring to it.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes