RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web shortcomings]
Or perhaps Common Logic English Ontology (CLEO) -- since it will be tied to
both CL and CLCE.. also "common" in the sense of shared for multiple
purposes...
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:standard-upper-
> ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Philip Jackson
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 6:03 PM
> To: 'John F. Sowa'; 'Andrei Voronkov'
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web
> shortcomings]
>
> How about "Common Logic Ontology" (CLO), since there is proposed to be a
> strong tie to Common Logic and Common Logic Controlled English..?
>
> Phil
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:standard-upper-
> > ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:02 PM
> > To: Andrei Voronkov
> > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web
> > shortcomings]
> >
> > Andrei,
> >
> > That's a good point:
> >
> > AV> you consistently use FO for "foundation(al) ontology"
> > > while FO is also a standard abbreviation for "first-order"
> > > (you use FOL yourself). I am afraid this creates a lot
> > > of confusion.
> >
> > The term 'foundation ontology' is one that Pat Cassidy
> > was using, and I adopted it for a couple of reasons:
> >
> > 1. Several people were already using it.
> >
> > 2. It is sufficiently different from "upper ontology'
> > to indicate that there is something significantly
> > different from what was being proposed before.
> >
> > I have no strong preference. Does anyone else have any
> > suggestions for a name that avoids confusion and has
> > a good acronym?
> >
> > John