John,

I fully agree with you on those points. Therefore the first thing i miss in any academic debate is what I get in any legal contract of any value: a paragraph on definitions of terms. It says that "for the purpose of this agreement, Buyer shall mean... etc."

Thus in any exchange of passages without mutually presenting the stok of defintions to be agreed on you are left stranded with making references to authorities and closing the debate on an authoritarian basis and not by step by step argumentation to defend each point raised through a definition.

Without agreeing on the nature of the most basic nature and inventory of core ontologies it remains difficult to see a common platform other than those already existing and may be innsufficent to allow for a modular construction desired.

Thanks a lot

Ferenc