Re: SUO: Re: One Stone Fits All
Ted,
That's fine:
TD> What if "species" and "individuals" are real in a sense that
> "universals" and "particulars" are not?
As I said in my earlier note, I was only suggesting that we
drop certain terms, such as "universals" and "particulars",
from the SUO glossary. That glossary is *not* the ontology;
it is merely the terminology for the methodology.
My criticism of the DOLCE methodology and terminology has nothing
to do with what concepts should or should not be included in the
ontology itself -- that is a totally separate issue.
TD> So, if "species" and "individual" are not merely utilitarian
abstractions
> but self-contained realities, wouldn't they be included in the ontological
> definitions?
I would assume that those terms, which are important to biology,
would be included in the SUO ontology.
Summary: The SUO ontology is the ultimate product that the SUO
Working Group has committed to deliver. The SUO glossary is a
collection of terms for use by the SUO WG in the methodology
for developing the ontology.
The glossary is not the same as the ontology. It is not even
a subset of the ontology. It might be possible that some terms
might appear in both the ontology and the glossary, but that is
purely a coincidence. It is certainly not a requirement.
John Sowa