- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@verizon.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 17:27:12 -0500
- To: "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Cc: Frank Manola <fmanola@verizon.net>
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? > > >
Received on Monday, 11 January 2021 22:27:33 UTC