Re: Foundation Ontology?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Okay, I hadn't realized the ordinary language
aspect of it all was that critical to you ...
So how about:
Common, Ordinary, Ontology Language (COOL)
Jon
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Phil,
>
> Actually, I rather like the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that I made
> in a note to Jon Awbrey: UFO for Ungrounded Foundation Ontology.
>
> That is an accurate description, since it may be desirable that
> the terms of an ontology would be grounded in actual entities in
> the real world, but there is no way to ensure that any particular
> version is truly grounded. Furthermore, the association with
> unidentified flying objects is also a good metaphor for many
> proposed ontologies.
>
> However, I don't think that acronym would "fly".
>
> John
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
mathweb: http://www.mathweb.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
p2p wiki: http://www.p2pfoundation.net/User:JonAwbrey
planet math: http://planetmath.org/?op=userobjs;id=15246
semantic web: http://semanticweb.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
ontolog: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JonAwbrey
c: http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=5619
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o