- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:35:21 -0500
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 19:11 -0500 12/29/03, Drew McDermott wrote: >> [Jim Hendler] >> If you and I are transacting business (or you are running a factory >> using a machine I manufactured) I don't see why we would need, or >> even want, to merge everything in our ontologies (for example, maybe >> you believe that Rush Limbaugh is a rational being and I cannot live >> with that belief) > >In my model of ontology merging, two inconsistent ontologies can't be >merged; the result would have no models. > >But I don't see why a judgment one way or the other about the >rationality of Rush Limbaugh would be a part of an ontology. Perhaps >there's a better example. > > -- Drew Ontology 1: beginTime(human) = conception. necessarilybefore(conception, birth). Ontology 2: beginTime(human) = birth. necessarilybefore(conception, birth). or, perhaps KidsOntology IsReal(Santa). AdultOntology IsConceptual(Santa) IsReal disjoint IsConceptual. Or, go back to the one I use in many of my talks -- there exists (or used to exist) a web page claiming the number of cows in texas was zero because they had been replaced with alien entities. There are other pages which claim the number is in the 100s of millions. Both agree with some partial axiomization of what a cow is, but surely any naive merging of these would be inconsistent -- Professor James Hendler http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-277-3388 (Cell)
Received on Thursday, 1 January 2004 15:40:22 UTC