ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Defining Concept

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John A. Bateman" <bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2007年1月19日 22:04:37 +0100
Message-id: <45B13265.5080201@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Facet
>
> Assembly
>
> Bound or Bounded
>
> Prime (as in an indivisible prime number)
>
> Set
>
> Totality
>
> or
>
> Resource  (01) 
er... what problem is being sorted out here? All of these
terms are already overloaded to the nth degree and
have non-overlapping meanings; as does
Aspect. If there was ever a good example of why ontology
can and should use an axiomatised formalisation
instead of natural language terms, then
I guess this is it! :-)  (02)
John B.  (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (04)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date: Re: [ontolog-forum] Defining Concept , Arsic, Antoinette
Next by Date: Re: [ontolog-forum] Defining Concept , Lesh, Kathryn A.
Previous by Thread: Re: [ontolog-forum] Defining Concept , Arsic, Antoinette
Next by Thread: Re: [ontolog-forum] Defining Concept , Pat Hayes
Indexes: [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /