SUO: Re: Negotiation Instead of Legislation
Chris,
I think we more or less agree. There are undoubtedly many
differences at a more detailed level, but we can ferret them
out later.
JS>> 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.
CW> I agree with this as well. But I don't see a problem with
> selecting some small number of frequently used combinations and > putting
them out there for people to use. Some people find the > distinctions a bit
tough to get around, but upper level
> categories are usually intuitive to most people.
I agree. In fact, I don't believe that Cyc, SUMO, et al.,
are useless, even though I don't think that they should be
adopted as standards. I would consider them "useful resources"
from which suitable tools could extract much of what is needed
for any particular problem.
> If Hendler&Berners-Lee get their wish, there will be a lot of
> people out there building ontologies, and most of them won't
> know a distinction from a dipswitch. But there's a chance
> they'll know a process from a living being.
Well, I don't think Hendler, Berners-Lee, et al., will get
their wish (even though they'll burn a lot of money trying).
But I believe that with suitable tools we can accomplish
goals that are different from, but far more practical than
what they have been preaching.
John