RE: SUO: RE: More KIF-ified Ontology Content
Dear Pat,
Oh, I assumed you (all) understood that the nice thing about standards was
that there were so many to choose from.
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
Mobile: +44 7796 336538
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: 07 December 2000 21:53
> To: Adam Pease
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: More KIF-ified Ontology Content
>
>
>
> >Matthew,
> > I think Pat's point is a bit simpler - that some reasonable
> >choices in ontology are incompatible, so we'll never get a useful
> >single ontology. My point is the opposite - we can make some
> >reasonable choices and get a coherent standard. I take Cyc as an
> >existence proof that reasonable choices can be made and the result
> >is a product of significant value.
>
> Hi Adam
>
> Yes, but Cyc is not an upper ontology, but an actual ontology. If the
> SUO is in fact just another O - or even the UO of an O - then say so,
> and I will stop whining about it, since we will then agree. But I
> would add, in that case do not pretend that it is somehow going to
> magically be all things to all ontologists, or solve problems of
> inter-ontology translation, because it won't. It will just be one
> 'standard' among many others.
>
> Pat
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>