RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web shortcomings]
Some reductions of FONT and FOONT:
FON - Foundation Ontology
FOON - Foundation Ontology
Neither seems to have negative connotations...
FOON was how Jacques Clouseau pronounced "phone" in the Pink Panther. :) --
It's also an alternative name for spork, the combination spoon and fork.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:standard-upper-
> ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Philip Jackson
> 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
> 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
> "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
> 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...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John F. Sowa [mailto:email@example.com]
> > 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