Re: Upper ontologies

Personally, I think the whole science and philosophy is a journey for The
One (Upper) Ontology.
Once we get there, we will lose our job, and probably the meaning of our
life.


On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 07:33, Frank Manola <fmanola@verizon.net> wrote:

> People on this list should be familiar with the line ”The nice thing about
> standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.”
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 2021, at 5:07 PM, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)
> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
> >
> > I meant 3000 of course
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 January, 2021 09:07
> > To: Mikael Pesonen <mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi>; semantic-web@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Upper ontologies
> >
> > Even 'upper' ontologies come from a particular a point of view, and a
> corresponding suite of applications that they are best for. There is no
> single truth, that's why Philosophy is a research discipline for best part
> of 300 years.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mikael Pesonen <mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 January, 2021 02:41
> > To: semantic-web@w3.org
> > Subject: Upper ontologies
> >
> > Maybe this is a stupid question but why is there (at the moment) 17
> different upper ontologies:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology
> >
> > Isn't the idea to make just one that everyone can use?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

-- 
Jin-Dong Kim, Ph.D,
Project Associate Professor,
Database Center for Life Science (DBCLS),
Research Organization of Information and Systems (ROIS)
home: http://dbcls.rois.ac.jp/~jdkim
e-mail: jdkim@dbcls.rois.ac.jp