Re: SUO: ontology as science
Bill and Matthew,
We are in agreement, but there are still some monolithic fans
among us who need more convincing.
MW>I agree with you [WB].
>
>I have actually suggested a couple of times that the important thing
>we need to do is establish a process, rather than define a deliverable,
>but it often takes several attempts to make a point.
WB> Yet this characteristic/feature - semantic drift
> - requires some method be included with the SUO to govern its
> evolution over time in response to changing requirements.
> (Likewise, some method is needed to account for language and
> contextual differences.)
I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically agree.
See my previous response to JA and JF in this same thread.
Cyc supports contextual differences with microtheories, and
we need a similar modular mechanism in any proposed SUO.
John Sowa