RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web shortcomings]
FOONT is AOK with me!
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pat@micra.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 6:46 PM
> To: 'Philip Jackson'
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web
> shortcomings]
>
> The reason I adopted the pre-existing term "Foundation Ontology" is
> because
> it very clearly expresses the function of the ontology - to serve as a
> foundation on which a specialized ontology can be built. All analogies
> are
> faulty for this kind of artifact - there is really nothing else quite like
> it. So it can serve as a foundation not just for one ontology, but for
> many
> - and in so doing will enable a high degree of accurate interoperability.
>
> If one wants an acronym that doesn't seem to clash with other acronyms,
> how about "FOONT"?
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@micra.com
>
>
> > -----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