Re: SUO: RE: RE: Re: Re: Abstraction, Analogy, Example, Icon, Metaphor, Model, Morphism, Paradigm, Prototype, Simulation
- To: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>, Philip Jackson <phil.jackson@computer.org>, Jack Park <jackpark@VERTICALNET.COM>, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>, Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
- Subject: Re: SUO: RE: RE: Re: Re: Abstraction, Analogy, Example, Icon, Metaphor, Model, Morphism, Paradigm, Prototype, Simulation
- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:43:56 EDT
- Reply-To: sowa@bestweb.net
- Sender: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Matthew,
That is a point that I keep emphasizing to both logicians
and to database experts -- two sets that are almost disjoint.
>Of course the basis is data models, rather than FOL type stuff, but as I am
>increasingly realising the gap between the two is narrower than most people
>think. It is just that very few try to cross it.
I keep reminding the logicians that the query subset of SQL
can represent full FOL. And I keep reminding the database
programmers that whenever they formulate a query in SQL they
are using a version of FOL.
There are a few professor types who know both, but they are
very rare and are usually ignored by both the programmers and
the logicians.
John Sowa
- Prev by Date:
SUO: Re: Abstraction, Analogy, Example, Icon, Metaphor, Model, Morphism, Paradigm, Prototype, Simulation
- Next by Date:
SUO: Re: "CAD Data Models", "FOL Type Stuff", & Translators
- Prev by thread:
SUO: STEP as an Ontology -- RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: A,A,E,I,M,M,M,P,P,S.......
- Next by thread:
SUO: Re: Abstraction, Analogy, Example, Icon, Metaphor, Model, Morphism, Paradigm, Prototype, Simulation
- Index(es):