- 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>
>>>>> "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... Phil
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 12:46:15 UTC