- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 02:11:22 +0200
- To: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Paul Prueitt" <psp@virtualtaos.net>, "Peter Stephenson" <prstephenson@earthlink.net>, "Ken Ewell" <mitioke@readware.com>, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>, Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, semantic-web@w3.org, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
On 4/7/06, adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com> wrote: > So, if I am right, and I have no idea if I am, then currently there is a > code bias that the no UFOs and the production of lots of little ontologies > left to fight it out amongst themselves fits well in to. I see no obstacle to any UFO, quite the opposite. The WordNet vocabulary (ok different, but having a lot of points in common) is referred to in many of the the little ontologies. I for one haven't really come to grips with what's in Cyc, but quite a few people are using their ontology for reference points. The overall strategy may be different, but I don't see any conflict. > As to your other comments, I have no idea, but I am not sure how well put > your position is. With respect, wouldn't it suffice just to say that Danny > didn't seem to be following your point of view? Thank you, that's how I would have liked to have put it. I'd like to take the opportunity to apologise to Dr.Prueitt for any offence I may have caused and dive out of these particular discussions. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 00:11:27 UTC