- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:24:23 -0500
- To: 'Stuart Williams' <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: 'Jon Hanna' <jon@hackcraft.net>, 'Chris Lilley' <chris@w3.org>, 'Jacek Kopecky' <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, www-tag@w3.org
That was a thumbs up. It notes that the colloquial term within the scope of the architecture has a testable meaning and that is the same as the test for 'information resource': it returns a representation. Right? Or am I confused too? I think of it in the traditional sense of "ontological commitment" per Thomas Gruber. "An ontology should require the minimal ontological commitment sufficient to support the intended knowledge sharing activities... Since ontological commitment is based on consistent use of vocabulary, ontological commitment can be minimized by specifying the weakest theory (allowing the most models) and defining only those terms which are essential to the communication of knowledge consistent with that theory." len From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stuart Williams So Len... that's a thumbs down on the colloquailism? Or maybe you wanted to confuse... :-) and maybe in my case succeeded :-)
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 17:24:57 UTC