[Person-ontology] OWL for exchanging ontologies

[Pat Hayes]

>  >  I say that before encoding ontology, there is some groundwork to be
>>done in plain english.
>
>OK. What?
>
>
>write spec - (lots of subtasks there)

OK, perhaps then you can tell me what a spec of 
an ontology should look like. I have never seen 
one.

>  OWL is not a programming code, and
>formalizing knowledge is not like programming.
>
>
>It's a 'metaphor'

? WHat is a metaphor for what here? YOu have lost 
me. If you are using programming (esp. management 
of large software projects) as a metaphor for how 
to build ontologies, I thinkn you are using a bad 
(= highly misleading) metaphor.

>  - but I think you and I do not share the same background, therefore
>you tend to misinterpret my constructs 
>regularlty. I wish I could express myself using
>mathematical formulas

Well, I do read and write English reasonably proficiently.

>Listing relevant facts and topic areas, and
>first application areas, might be well worth trying, however.
>
>
>sounds like a good start -  diagrams are useful 
>to some people, and not so useful to others
>but the fact that they are not useful to you, 
>does not mean that you have the right to
>wipe them off the project

True, I don't think I have any authority to wipe 
anything. However I do have the right to ignore 
them and requests to draw them, which I shall do.

>  >
>>so, shall we start? (before worrying where it ends)
>
>Are there any facts about people that any of us are likely to *not* agree on?
>
>
>I can answer that after you tell me what the 
>facts are, Where are the 'assertions'
>of this ontology?

You have already said that you want to do all 
this BEFORE any assertions have been written. The 
assertions ARE the ontology.

>so that we can discuss them (apols if I they are 
>somewhere that I have not seen, but ifs so, they 
>should be pointed to when referring to them)
>
>
>  >also, did nt you say that somethin in Higgins is broken, maybe
>>that's something that should be worked on before thinking of coding
>
>It was the coding that was 'broken', but maybe 'highly idiosyncratic'
>would be a better description.
>
>
>I see, syntax then - was wondering about that

No, not syntax: semantics. HOWL is syntactically correct OWL.

Pat

>
>thanks
>
>PDM
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Paola
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>--
>Paola Di Maio
>School of IT
><http://www.mfu.ac.th> www.mfu.ac.th
>*********************************************


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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