RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web shortcomings]
Actually Bont is the name of a ball game in France, which would seem to be
ok...
Another option might be:
Kernel ontology (KO)
Which means knockout in boxing... has several other meanings that seem ok...
and can be written phonetically in four-letters as Kayo...
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 7:34 AM
> To: 'John F. Sowa'; 'Andrei Voronkov'
> Cc: 'standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web
> shortcomings]
>
> FONT and FOONT are both reasonable -- FONT is shorter, while FOONT is more
> light-hearted. Regarding FONT, we might hope that this will eventually be
> a "font of wisdom"... yet FONT has potential confusion with character
> formats... FOONT reminds one of "foo" and "fie" as default variable names,
> which seems nice...
>
> One option in constructing a name and acronym might be to consider
> translations of "foundation" to other languages, e.g. "base" in French...
> this suggests:
>
> base ontology (BONT) - This has the advantage it doesn't seem to mean
> anything in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish. I don't know if it
> has a meaning in Japanese, Chinese or Korean...
>
> some other ideas:
>
> foundation ontology logic kernel (FOLK)
> common foundation ontology (CFO) - maybe confusing in use...
> ontology kernel (OK)
> agreed / accepted ontology kernel (AOK)
> ...
>
> OK and AOK seem nice, but they could tend to be confusing in conversation
> and writing...
>
> Phil
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 12:51 AM
> > To: Andrei Voronkov
> > Cc: Philip Jackson; standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web
> > shortcomings]
> >
> > I agree:
> >
> > AV> I am afraid "common logic" is simply not right. I would like
> > > to emphasize again that "foundation ontology" is a very
> > > precise term...
> >
> > Although I think that Common Logic and CLCE are very good notations
> > for specifying a Foundation Ontology, I believe that we should
> > generalize the definition to allow any version of logic and any
> > version of a controlled natural language.
> >
> > John