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

[Pat Hayes]

>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?

I think something like this will inevitably 
happen; but the resulting upper ontology will be 
minimal and only used where needed, which is 
exactly what it should be :-)

Pat

PS. when I say something like this, of course, I 
don't mean to refer to the actual Higgins 
ontology.

>Jim Schoening
>_______________________________________________
>Person-ontology mailing list
>Person-ontology at idcommons.net
>http://idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/person-ontology


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes