John Sowa wrote:
== === == === == === == === == === == === == === == === == ===
Until someone can demonstrate (a) the existence of a suitable set
of primitives, (b) the value of primitives for defining two or three
widely different ontologies, and (c) the value of the primitives
for mapping one to the other, it is premature to fund more than
a small study project.  (01)
John
== === == === == === == === == === == === == === == === == ===  (02)
If there ARE any primitives, they must be bound by the limits of human
perception. Language before technology was limited to the physical and
conceptual worlds we experience, and therefore can generalize through mental
operations. So language is rooted in our perceptions and experiences. Any
database primitives would have to be sufficient to represent most if not all
of those perceptions and experiences.  (03)
FCA is premised on the statement that the predicates distinguish object
groupings - classes. So the predicates must relate to primitives and the
objects we perceive to distinguish among them.  (04)
Can a candidate set of primitives be bounded by some sort of theoretical
information quantity limits?  (05)
Surely someone has done work in this area - references appreciated.  (06)
-Rich  (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (08)