W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2004

RE: [OEP] Ontological purity, was "Classes as values" first draft + ODP basics $swbpd

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:37:39 -0700
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF04266975@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Natasha Noy" <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: "Aldo Gangemi" <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, <welty@us.ibm.com>, "Nicola Guarino" <guarino@loa-cnr.it>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>

Agreed.

Mike

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Natasha Noy [mailto:noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU] 
Sent:	Saturday, April 24, 2004 2:22 PM
To:	Uschold, Michael F
Cc:	Aldo Gangemi; welty@us.ibm.com; Nicola Guarino; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; rector@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject:	Re: [OEP] Ontological purity, was "Classes as values" first draft + ODP basics  $swbpd


On Apr 23, 2004, at 6:20 PM, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> I agree with the spirit of this, with the following proviso.   Some 
> may find if of passing interest what ontological purists think, but 
> most I expect won't care unless there is some specific advantage.  We 
> might just stick to the impacts of different decisions and not mention 
> the notion of ontological purity at all, or perhaps just footnote that 
> one approach or another is the one preferred by 'ontological purists' 
> for those that might be interested.

In theory, I agree with you. In practice, let's just take it on a case 
by case basis and see what we want to say when we encounter this 
discrepancy (which we probably will, but I don't think we have just 
yet). In practice, we may often find out that the purist's solution 
makes a lot of sense. But again, this discussion would be more grounded 
if we had a specific problem.

Natasha
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 14:39:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:30:53 UTC