Re: [SUO] Re: Key questions about common upper ontologies
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> Those who are not (in Danny Ayers'
> words) "comfortable with the notion of a single global
> Uber-ontology" can be very comfortable doing their
> own thing inside their own organizations, but if one,
> for example, wants to communicate with the other members
> of this discussion group I would recommend strongly that
> you don't try to do it in Warlpiri -- even if
> you are most comfortable using that language.
A small clarification here - I'm very much suggesting the cherry-picking
usage for inter-organizational communication. If two organizations were
in the business of feline seating arrangements and decided to
communicate in Warlpiri, they would need only enough of the language to
be able to say "cat", "sat on" and "mat". This would of course require
some common (abstract) language, but I think it's commonly agreed around
here that for most purposes that will be (a subset of) FOL. The
communication will also need the concrete terms - two nouns and a verb.
Ok, terms like "cat" are unlikely to be in the upper scope, but I
believe the principle is the same. Successful communication does not
require the whole abstract language or concrete terminology. This is
advantageous to the adoption of any SUO, as people are more likely to be
willing to augment their existing languages/vocabularies than replace
them with a whole new language infrastructure.
Cheers,
Danny.
--
----
Raw
http://dannyayers.com