SUO: Holes in Arguments & Quotient Topologies
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Chris,
The tweaking of the title is purely free associative --
I hope that nobody takes it too seriously -- yeah,
like there's any chance of that happening!
And when it comes to my potential remarks on the subject of holes,
and the unbearable genus that it takes superficial bodies to blight,
well, I plan to avoid falling into it, as the subject has filled the
volumes of topology journals before there were any volumes of topology
journals, qua volumes of "topology" journals, per se, of which to speak.
No, I simply want to highlight this incidental statement of yours,
so that we might discuss its implications on some future ocassion:
Chris Menzel wrote:
>
> But it is precisely because we don't want
> to require every ontology to include all
> the details of its background ontology
> that an upper ontology is being developed,
> isn't it?
Now, I know that you are fully cognizant of all of the nuances
of different sense that are exhibited in the following phrases:
Being unacquainted with the details,
Being independent of the details,
Being oblivious of the details,
Being ignorant of the details,
Incorporating the details,
Not including the details,
Blotting out the details,
Synthesizing the details,
Neglecting the details,
Confusing the details,
Embodying the details,
Ignoring the details,
Eliding the details,
Erasing the details,
Merging the details,
Fusing the details,
And other details,
...
But I think that it would be good to go into some detail with
at least some of these distinctions, and the issues that they
raise, before we go about thinking to non-inclusively include
them in our SUO.
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤