> > >PPS: There are other issues to be resolved with respect to fooThing. For >example, would it be disjoint from barThing, where barThing is the top of >some other ontology? > Seems to me that defining a default Thing (and possibly a bottom) would make things much easier in general for all of the various parties involved -- by rooting all the ontologies at the same root node, there would be both mathematical advantages (whole inheritance hierarchy would become a rooted graph, and in most cases a rooted DAG) as well as obvious interoperability advantages. What would be the advantage of letting each designer do their own (and why wouldn't we want a global one) -- I have often stated that IMHO the best "high-level ontology" for the web would be the single node "Thing" (or, perhaps that should be http://...//DAML+OIL:DOThing or RDFS:RDFSThing) Dr. James Hendler jhendler@darpa.mil Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) 3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) Arlington, VA 22203 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendlerReceived on Monday, 18 December 2000 10:37:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:34:44 GMT