- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:01:00 -0500
- To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
On Feb 1, 2004, at 1:36 PM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote: > Just sort of intuitively I would think that in order to be an "upper > level ontology" as you describe it would be nice if the thing were > worked more extensively as an ontology than the WSA has been. Yes. > That is, > I would imagine that you would want to have a pretty fair confidence > that it could be used in unpredictable situations in that way, Yes, among other things. > and I > would think you would want to get such confidence by working with the > ontology And working with the more specific ontologies it's supports to support. > a fair amount and feeding back that experience into the > definition of the WSA itself, and iterating as appropriate. We did not > do that, other than noting from the ontology certain logical > inconsistencies or missing stuff. Yep, one reason I think it's not "safe" to consider it as such. Of course, it's a perfectly reasonable starting point. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2004 14:01:26 UTC