Sunday, December 11, 2005
Regarding Universal Data Element Framework
see à [287]
Roy,
We feel that your approach is very consistent with
approaches being defined by OASIS... and others. We must focus on what specifically the common and proper approach
is, given that we are where we are in history.
Cory's note (below) that we should not make it difficult
to RE-attach logics (of what ever form) is THE KEY, in my opinion also, to
getting John Sowa's Unified Framework in place .
Is this how you see it , John?
If so, then I feel that the group should focus on how this
might be done. Say, in how some subset
of the SUMO concepts might be separated from the notion of logic or
reasoning. Creating a controlled
vocabulary and a simple graph is what I have suggested... the result would be
the set of syntagmatic triples
{ < a(i), r,
a(j) > }
where the triple is oriented to specifying the
relationship between two or more concepts and the set of concepts is enumerated
as
{ a(q) | q is
an simple counting or ordering index }
Note that the notion of a three layer database
architecture was to completely separate the data from the logic, and the
presentation is then also completely separated..... I know that many here knows this history.. n-tier stuff. etc.... but the argument
that ontologists
should separate the logic
from the ontology
concepts
seems to parallel that n-tier history in the database
world. Cory is stating the obvious,
very well, in pointing out that the separation should not undo anyone's
work. John makes the same observation
about the need to not undo anyone's work.
We need a few people who really understand the issues to
step in here...
and we need the common set of SUMO concepts (with some
minimal set of properties - like what is being discussed by Geoff and I)
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/292.htm
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/293.htm
Paul Prueitt
move to next bead à [291]