Re: SUO: Re: What is the motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies?
In http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg09709.html
Pierre Grenon wrote :
> Do you mean that because Cycorp has developed an ontology, Teknowlöedge has
> developed an ontology and John Sowa has written a book and maintain a website
> about his ontology, we need such multiplicity of ontologies? So we need X
> because there is X? What the hell, man, do you have more things like that to
> say?
>
> Or do you mean something like you and I do not see the same thing in the world
> therefore we need an Awbrey and a Grenon ontology?
I will speak S L O W L Y and LOUDLY so *everyone* gets *some* chance to understand...
I am fairly sure that the SUMO ontology and the Cyc ontology are NOT the same
(not to speak of the Grenon ontology versus Awbrey's ontology,
or anyone else's ontology for that matter :o))
and that they cannot currently be subsumed by any upper or merged ontology.
But, if you or anyone else disagree, please SHOW US:
Merge SUMO and Cyc right away, WITHOUT LOSING ANY SIGNIFICANT MEANING FROM EITHER ONE!
Since everybody else has stumbled on such a challenge that would be a great achievement
for SUO and the whole universe will be eternally gratefull to you...
Or is it that you don't see any problem?
[snip]
> Thanks for illustrating my point.
The same to you!
(Ahem... I am puzzled, are you REALLY that dumb, or do you pretend to on (some) purpose?)
Take care...
-- Jean-Luc Delatre
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Always do right - this will gratify some and astonish the rest."
-- Mark Twain (1835-1910)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://perso.club-internet.fr/jld/ -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29