RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web shortcomings]
FONT and FOONT are both reasonable -- FONT is shorter, while FOONT is more
light-hearted. Regarding FONT, we might hope that this will eventually be a
"font of wisdom"... yet FONT has potential confusion with character
formats... FOONT reminds one of "foo" and "fie" as default variable names,
which seems nice...
One option in constructing a name and acronym might be to consider
translations of "foundation" to other languages, e.g. "base" in French...
this suggests:
base ontology (BONT) - This has the advantage it doesn't seem to mean
anything in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish. I don't know if it has
a meaning in Japanese, Chinese or Korean...
some other ideas:
foundation ontology logic kernel (FOLK)
common foundation ontology (CFO) - maybe confusing in use...
ontology kernel (OK)
agreed / accepted ontology kernel (AOK)
...
OK and AOK seem nice, but they could tend to be confusing in conversation
and writing...
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 12:51 AM
> To: Andrei Voronkov
> Cc: Philip Jackson; standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology [was Semantic Web
> shortcomings]
>
> I agree:
>
> AV> I am afraid "common logic" is simply not right. I would like
> > to emphasize again that "foundation ontology" is a very
> > precise term...
>
> Although I think that Common Logic and CLCE are very good notations
> for specifying a Foundation Ontology, I believe that we should
> generalize the definition to allow any version of logic and any
> version of a controlled natural language.
>
> John