W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: Degree of acceptance of BFO

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:45:14 +0100
To: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Cc: "'OWL developers public list'" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <87wsu44bad.fsf@dinley.ncl.ac.uk>

>>>>> "GW" == Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de> writes:

  >> while reading the 132 pages PDF manual of BFO
  >> (http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/projects/bfo/manual/) I've been
  >> wondering how widely used/accepted such recommendation is, as the basis
  >> of any ontology.  Is it a proposal, a de-facto standard, a good starting
  >> point?

  GW> I think it's just a (not very elaborate) proposal, and probably not a
  GW> good starting point, as its formalism seems to be pretty weak (despite
  GW> the name "formal ontology").

  GW> A better choice, which is, of course, also just a proposal (as there is
  GW> no de-facto standard in this area), is described in
  GW> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Formal_Ontology

Hmmm, gfo looks very good. It's a little worrying that there is so little
activity on the mailing list though, or in the svn...

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 12:46:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC