RE: SUO: Re: IFF Comments Requested
Chris,
Can I turn this IFF question around? To a question about KIF. Maybe this
will move the discussion on one step.
There has been some discussion on this list of the endurantist and
perdurantist positions.
It seems to me that one often has an option of taking one or the other view
when trying to describe a particular domain or sub-domain.
It seems to me that KIF can be used to formalize either of these options.
That is right isn't it?
It seems to me that KIF probably can be used to formalize the general
endurantist and perdurantist positions (if we can work out how to do it).
That is right isn't it?
But, it seems to me that KIF cannot by itself be used to merge one of the
two general formalizations (endurantist or perdurantist) with the bare bones
of a domain ontology to give a fleshed out ontology of the right flavour. Is
this right?
If the answer to the last question is 'NO' - then it would be interesting if
it is thought that IFF can do this - and if it can how. Some of the earlier
messages seemed to me to be suggesting that this is what IFF is good for.
Regards
One of the Chrises
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Chris
Menzel
Sent: 05 October 2001 05:11
To: IEEE Standard Upper Ontology List
Subject: Re: SUO: Re: IFF Comments Requested
Pat Hayes wrote:
> >The IFF now lives in extended form at http://suo.ieee.org/IFF.
> >It consists of four pieces: an Introduction, a Core subOntology,
> >a Category Theory subOntology, and a Classification subOntology.
>
> None of those Ontologies can be accessed from that URI.
I noticed that my mailer picked up the period at the end of the URI, so
when I clicked on it I got an error msg; I had to paste the URI in
manually. A typical sort of problem when one sends out mail infested with
HTML garbage.
> First, I fail to see the utility of the emphasis placed on category
> theory. This is not motivated anywhere, but it badly needs to be
> motivated if you expect anyone to take it seriously enough to even
> read the sources to find out what you are talking about.
I heartily agree. I've never heard an adequate answer to this question.
I find the rest of Pat's criticisms equally compelling.
-chris
--
/\ ASCII ribbon | Chris Menzel -- http://philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
\/ campaign | Philosophy Dept, Texas A&M University
/\ against | College Station, TX 77843-4237
/ \ HTML email | voice: 979.845-5660 fax: 979.845.0458