[289]                           home                           [291]

 

Sunday, December 11, 2005

 

 The BCNGroup Beadgames

 

 

Challenge Problem  à

 

Regarding Universal Data Element Framework see à [287]

 

 

Roy,

 

We feel that your approach is very consistent with approaches being defined by OASIS... and others.  We must focus on what specifically the common and proper approach is, given that we are where we are in history. 

 

Cory's note (below) that we should not make it difficult to RE-attach logics (of what ever form) is THE KEY, in my opinion also, to getting John Sowa's Unified Framework in place .

 

Is this how you see it , John?

 

If so, then I feel that the group should focus on how this might be done.  Say, in how some subset of the SUMO concepts might be separated from the notion of logic or reasoning.  Creating a controlled vocabulary and a simple graph is what I have suggested... the result would be the set of syntagmatic triples

 

    { < a(i), r, a(j) > }

 

where the triple is oriented to specifying the relationship between two or more concepts and the set of concepts is enumerated as

 

      { a(q) | q is an simple counting or ordering index }

 

Note that the notion of a three layer database architecture was to completely separate the data from the logic, and the presentation is then also completely separated.....  I know that many here knows this history..  n-tier stuff. etc.... but the argument

 

 

   that ontologists should separate the logic

   from the ontology concepts

 

 

seems to parallel that n-tier history in the database world.  Cory is stating the obvious, very well, in pointing out that the separation should not undo anyone's work.  John makes the same observation about the need to not undo anyone's work.

 

 

We need a few people who really understand the issues to step in here...

 

and we need the common set of SUMO concepts (with some minimal set of properties - like what is being discussed by Geoff and I)

 

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/292.htm

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/293.htm

 

Paul Prueitt

 

 

move to next bead à [291]