Re: [xtm-wg] Common Assumptions

[Jack Park <jackpark@verticalnet.com>]

>From below: "If I use Cyc as my TM reference, all TM using that same Cyc
reference will
be able to merge Topics referenced in Cyc. No more."

Well, we are, methinks, making progress here. It is clear that a common
ontology is required. It is also clear that it matters not which ontology is
used, so long as it is an agreed-upon entity.

So, therefore, I return to my original claim, this time without calling it a
concensus anything, that it will be useful for XTM to establish a library of
URIs such that we avail ourselves and the rest of the world the opportunity
to work from just one particular library (dictionary, ontology, whatever) of
subjects.  Yup, it could grow to be huge.  So what? The web is already huge.

As to the formation of a web community aimed at the formation of concensus
ontologies, I'm fixin to do just that.  Watch this space.

Jack

From: univers immedia <universimmedia@wanadoo.fr>

Jack

<snippage>
There are and they will always be - at least I hope so - a great variety of
ontologies, dictionaries, languages and views of the world.
I forged once the word "ontodiversity" like a generalization of
"biodiversity". Same advantages.
My only point is : if you want your Map to be sharable, use some visible
and stable one.
If I use Cyc as my TM reference, all TM using that same Cyc reference will
be able to merge Topics referenced in Cyc. No more.
As I answered very shortly to you in private, using Harrap's rather than
Webster's as reference dictionary when I play Scrabble - well, in fact I
generally play Scrabble in French, so it's either Larousse or Robert (or
both) - does not mean Harrap's is a "better one" or "unique reference".
Maybe it's the only one at hand when I play, and it's there only to make
sure all players have the same reference in case of disagreement.
I really don't believe in any consensus reality. I have a more modest
objective : build pragmatic tools enabling that when I say "A" and you say
"A" we can make sure we *agree we refer* to the same subject indicator ;
and using the same public dictionary/ontology is the only way I see to do
that.

That does not mean we have the same understanding of the definition we both
refer to.
That does not mean that definition is the best and only one.
And that has nothing to do with the way the dictionary/ontology is built.

Now we have another issue : will collaborative TM building help to build
"consensus" ontologies inside a community ?
I should be happy to answer yes. The only way to know is : let's try.

Bernard



============================================================================
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
immediately.
============================================================================


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/980902217/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com