Re: SUO: Re: Negotiation Instead of Legislation
Doug,
I strongly endorse the need for testing ontologies against real
applications:
DMcD> Your emphasis on applications is something that I have consistently
> tried to inject into this Working Group. Discussions of applications
> and how upper ontologies might provide mediating structure have
> occasionally broken out here, but this has been rare.
I believe that the following issues are extremely important:
> How do you envision that these assertions will interface with other
> ontologies? What kinds of application-level ambiguities will be
> able to be disambiguated by this kind of structure? What are the
> practical purposes that will be served, in what kinds of working
> domains, for these particular constructs?
That is, in fact, one of the main motivations behind my talk on
negotiation instead of legislation. The application or specific task
to be accomplished must determine what categories and axioms are
chosen for the problem at hand.
That is why I want the ontology to be organized in a library of
modules rather than a monolithic whole.
John