- From: <tim.glover@bt.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:04:07 +0100
- To: <henry.story@bblfish.net>, <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>, <sowa@bestweb.net>, <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Henry, >> Henry, >> Thank you for the useful reply. >> But I don't think this deals with the issues of mediation between >> two similar but semantically disjoint ontologies. >Show me one, and I'll look at how we can link them (if it does not >take too long) OK, here is one attempt at a challenge (adam - sorry if I have missed the point) ******************************************** Imagine 4 ontologies. All describe the class People, and subclasses Married and Unmarried. Suppose that Clive was married but is now divorced. Diane was married but is now widowed. Alice has never been married, and Bill is married. * In ontology 1, Clive and Diane are unmarried (unmarried means unmarried now) * In ontology 2, Clive and Diane are married (married means has gone through a marriage ceremony). * In ontology 3, Clive and Diane are both married and unmarried (married means has been married once, unmarried means not married now) * In ontology 4 Clive is unmarried, Bill is married, and Alice and Diane are neither married nor unmarried (un-married means having been through a divorce. Married means married now). How do you map these ontologies? *********************************************** >That notion is one that we keep telling you is not part of the >Semantic Web. It is *your* vision of the Semantic Web. >You have a straw man argument. You imagine we are doing something we >are not doing. Then you prove that what you imagine we are doing is >impossible. And you wrongly conclude that what we are doing is >impossible. Please distinguish between what you think we are doing and >what we are doing. Who are "We" exactly? People that you happen to agree with? ;-) Tim.
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 09:04:19 UTC