SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Definition
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> DEF. Note 3
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa
JA: SUOPT :> DEF Page 2. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11652.html
JS: I agree that addressing the way concepts are currently defined
and should be defined is an excellent way to start. And I would
suggest that we begin with some examples -- two or three would be
sufficient to raise most of the issues involved and to illustrate
ways of addressing them.
JS: I suggest that we take a few familiar concepts that are present
in each of the starting documents, in some of the other ontologies
we have been discussing such as Dolce and WordNet, and in ordinary
English dictionaries. Then create one file for each concept, and
list the definitions extracted from each source.
JS: It would be very interesting to compare each of the approaches,
analyze what they include or omit, and list the advantages and
disadvantages of each approach.
John,
And now everybody is already getting way ahead of me, while I while away
my time in the tedeum of my secretary bard labors, for you have just now
full anticipated the very reason that I found myself induced to instance
the Topic :> Definition of Example as I mulled over a set of preliminary
problems about the Topic :> Definition of Definition, and dimly, tardily
came to realize that the usual way to avoid the sans _|_ irrecursiveness
of it all would be to invoke the stratagem of "Definition By Example" in
precursory echo, say, of "Query By Example". So that will catch the van
up with the ruck of that.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o