[Person-ontology] What about a de facto upper ontology?

[ajit kapoor]

Jim,

You bring up a very interesting and long debated issue. There is a good 
discussion of this in the Wikipedia, url indicated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology_(computer_science)

So as not to repeat, this could start a good dialog for or against a 
foundational ontology.

My arguments are based on pragmatic incremental success in defining a 
defacto (yet bounded ontology) as a starting point and as we gain experience 
extending the schema to allow for deviations. I believe to debate ad 
infinitum on a intellectual and philosophical level only leads to 
stagnation. I would therefore propose that we define our bounds, live with 
them and gain experience as to the actual challenges this may cause.

ajit
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Schoening, James R Mr CIV USA AMC" <James.Schoening at us.Army.Mil>
To: <person-ontology at idcommons.net>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:09 PM
Subject: [Person-ontology] What about a de facto upper ontology?


> All,
>
>  Several members have stated their concerns about there ever
> being a single upper ontology.  I can understand opposition to a
> standards developing organization (e.g. ISO or IEEE) passing a standard
> upper ontology.
>
> But suppose the open source Higgins project were to utilize a
> given upper ontology as a foundation for it Person-Ontology, and suppose
> Higgins became a big market success, which led to many vendors using the
> same upper ontology, which led to market-momentum for the upper
> ontology.
>
> For those opposed to a standard upper ontology, what are your
> thoughts on the emergence of a market-driven de facto upper ontology?
>
> Jim Schoening
> _______________________________________________
> Person-ontology mailing list
> Person-ontology at idcommons.net
> http://idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/person-ontology