Re: SEMIS Bulletin
Robert E. Kent wrote:
>Fred,
>
>
>
>>B&S's IF is applicable for representation systems
>>(mathematics, computers and natural language) as
>>well as other things those representations might be
>>about. Kent's IFF suggests that this is useful for
>>ontology integration, but I still can figure out how
>>
>>
^^^
My own mistake, I meant to type "cannot".
>
>
>>that can be done. Kalfoglou and Schorlemmer give some
>>examples of IF based ontology mapping,
>>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~yk1/publications.html .
>>
>>I am still left wondering if it can scale to integrating
>>with larger systems like Cyc, what kinds of tools and
>>standards will be needed, and how various ontology
>>initiatives can instrument themselves for easy integration.
>>
>>
>----------------------------------------------
>
>
>>I do hope SUO can play an important role in this regard,
>>but we had better start getting more practical work done. The
>>gap between IFF theory and practical integration of populated
>>ontologies is still too big.
>>
>>
>
>Your comments on the paper "Semantic Integration in the IFF"
>http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS//Vol-82/SI_pap
>er_09.pdf,
>written for a semantics integration workshop last year in Florida (SI 2003),
>would be greatly appreciated. See also the discussion links in the "LOT: The
>Lattice of Theories" section of the IFF "Work in Progress" page
>http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/work-in-progress/
>
>Robert E. Kent
>rekent@ontologos.org
>
>
>
I've started to read this paper, and it is helpful in figuring out your
strategy in
IFF. I'll comment later in a separate thread.
Cheers,
Fred
Cebu City