Re: SUO: Negotiation Instead of Legislation
Chris,
There is another very important point, which we both
understand, but which we are looking at from different
points of view.
>You're right that we disagree. I think that there are a very small
>number of fundamentally irreconcilable upper-level notions. Like
>whether there is a continuant/occurrent distinction. In practice, I
>think we should allow for some number of SUOs, where "some number"
>will, I believe, be controlled by the amount of effort required to do
>one, and then let people choose the one that suits their needs best.
>A free-market onto-economy.
What we agree on: distinctions are very important.
What I maintain: the distinctions are even important than
the categories and the hierarchies. Instead of handing anyone
a prepackaged ontology with a hierarchy of distinctions, I
would prefer to give them a system that can recreate a new
ontlogy on the fly from whatever selection of distinctions
are important for their problem.
>... I can't help but observe that your architecture paper
>mentions an upper level as a component!
Yes, I have to admit that I have been wavering on this issue.
But I am coming to the conclusion that you don't need a single
fixed upper level -- you can create whatever upper level you
need from the choice of distinctions that are important to
your problem.
John