RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience

["John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>]

Dear Matthew,

I agree that having well-defined rules is important, but
those rules also have implications, which can create
inconsistencies, as we have noticed.

JS>You have to be very careful with Nicola's DOLCE.  One of his
>fundamental assumptions is totally inconsistent with Matthew's
>principle "if two things have the same spatiotemporal extent,
>they are identical."

MW> I have no problem mapping to and from multiple coincident objects
>as long as I know what the rules are and they are consistently 
>applied. That the rules do not coincide with many peoples intuitions
>is a different issue.

Intuitions lead to statements that embody them.  They can be
stated in formal languages or in natural languages, but sooner
or later, they generate inconsistencies with other intuitions.

Although I am in favor of well-defined methodologies, I have
serious doubts about the desirability of Nicola's identity
rules.  They solve a problem that exists only in Nicola's
conceptual model, not in mine or in others that I believe
are both more widely used and more suitable as a foundation
for ontology.

However, I would be willing to allow Nicola's model to
coexist as an option, but not one that I would recommend.

John