- From: Ansgar Scherp <scherp@uni-koblenz.de>
- Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:38:23 -0700
- To: AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
Dear Azamat Thank you for pointing out to that website. However, it is not my intention to discuss which one of the foundational ontologies is the "best" one. I looked into the white paper you provide on your web page, it contains some interesting references. However, it does not really help me to see the "real place of dolce in the system of upper ontologies" as the paper does not compare the upper ontologies. Our choice of DOLCE+DnS Ultralight was based on reading other related work and our own experience. I was also wondering, if for the standard (upper) ontology you are proposing a modeling in OWL is available? I didn't find any on the web page. But coming back to your statement that there is a "poor ontological study" of events. I would argue for the contrary: the concepts of event and object have a long history in philosophy and are well studied there. Based on this work and using DOLCE+DnS Ultralite as basis layer, we define in the Event-Model-F different ontology design patterns to express, e.g., causal relationships between events and interpretations of events. Here, the causality pattern defines a cause and an effect and is saying that causes and effects are events and only events. In addition, such a causal relationship holds under some justification and there is always such a justification. As there might be different interpretations of an event, the interpretation pattern allows to assemble different views onto that event. Best Ansgar
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 17:39:15 UTC