Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Robert,
I didn't mean that IFF is ad hoc and I didn't mean to poo-poo it. I meant that
I wouldn't want the SUO to be what it will be because we had to use IFF and the
backbone structure it is capable of supporting just for the sake of it. I was
stigmatizing a propsective SUO which would be started with the unqualified
intend of using IFF, I didn't mean to stigmatize IFF in doing so. I hope the
distinction is clear, apologies for the obscurity of my language.
Best
Pierre
> Pierre,
>
> > and ad hoc in its structure because we had to:
> > 3) use IFF
>
> There is nothing ad hoc about the IFF. In fact one of the main points (see
> the second issue) in my previous message
> http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg09582.html
> was that the IFF approach was most definitely not ad hoc, but instead very
> principled, being based upon some very well-known mathematics: Formal
> Concept Analysis, Information Flow and Category Theory. To repeat, the IFF
> is most definitely not ad hoc.
>
> Robert E. Kent
> rekent@ontologos.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Pierre Grenon
IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
Haertelstr. 16-18
04107 Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/
pgrenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de
phone: 49(0)351971672
fax: 49(0)3519716179