Re: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
Pat,
On point 2. below Guarino has noted (sorry I don't have the reference handy) that there isn't any consensus in the existing foundational ontologies (SUMO, OpenCyc, DOLCE, etc.) There are basic philosophical differences (e.g., between scientific-engineering definitions and cognitive or "common sense" ones) that divide foundational ontologies on important terms such as "Event" from the outset. So there isn't likely to be a consensus as long as the members of the group don't share a common set of philosophical assumptions. Point blank. (If you are tempted to disagree, have a look at the last couple years of discussions on this list.)
What I suggest is that the group forces a vote on important definitions, such as that of "Event." Otherwise, discussion can and will continue endlessly. Bringing the matter to a vote will involve the members of the group in a process that moves forward and that reflects the ideas of the majority.
If there's something wrong with THAT suggestion, and given that harping on pet theories based on philosophical biases (themselves codified, in many cases, by business interest or personal stake) isn't working, then I'm stumped.
Erik
Patrick Cassidy <pcassidy@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
2. I suggest that we try to find some degree of
consensus on what would constitute an "Event" in a
merged ontology, since events (or the 4-D correlate
"activity") are central to all ontologies dealing
with real-world problems. If agreement can be found
on that class, the discussion can be expanded to
related classes.
3. If a different process for building such a merged
ontology appears preferable to any of the participants,
I hope they will make a suggestion for the alternative.
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!