SUO: Re: Semantic Integration in the IFF
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Robert,
Thanks for the news and I will read it with interest. But.
I think that it may be time to do a bit of a reality check.
You know that I have been supportive of your general trend.
I'm the sort who would love it for the acronym alone. But.
I also believe that a general acquaintance with abstractly
commutative categorical ways of thinking is essential to
progress, both in thinking about and in actually using
mathematical models of complex systems, as reality is.
You may also know, from offlist discussions with Jim,
some fragment of which I copied to you, that it is
a constant struggle to explain to the Chair why
a basic knowledge of category theory might just
be related to the work of actually making some
use of IFF. Life is nice in Stratos City --
I know, I remember, before the Fall. But.
Here among the working grunts, we're busy
bustin buts to reach p.2 of Cat.Work.Math.
So that's the news from the trenches.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Robert E. Kent wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Some of you may be interested in my recent paper "Semantic Integration in the IFF"
> accepted for the Semantic Integration Workshop (SI 2003) of the 2nd International
> Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003). This paper discusses in a rather concentrated
> fashion the connection between the IFF and the motion of John Sowa for a joint SUO
> project to develop a library of modules. In the paper the intuitive IFF terminology
> for a library of modules is a system of ontologies, whereas the mathematical.IFF
> terminology for this is a diagram of theories (or logics).
>
> A PDF copy of the preprint is available at the address
> http://www.ontologos.org/Papers/SI2003/SI2003.pdf
>
> Your constructive comments are most welcome.
> Thank you.
> Robert E. Kent
> rekent@ontologos.org
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o