Re: Unified Framework for Ontology
On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:21, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> In short, UF would be very rich in categories, but very
> poor in axioms
John,
The idea of abandoning a single central standard set of axioms sounds entirely
sensible to me. But why stop at axioms?
Do you need WordNet? Words are perfectly useful categories, why not strike
your balance between the general and the specific the same place language
does, at words.
That is to say, if you are going to allow your users to make theory specific
mappings, why not allow them to make theory specific mappings between words
and categories too?
Surely if abandoning fixed theories gives you greater universality, abandoning
fixed categories will give you more again.
-Rob Freeman