Re: ANSI X3H4 meeting next week

• Mail folder: Interlingua Mail
• Next message: sowa@watson.ibm.com: "Multiple ontologies"
• Previous message: Gio Wiederhold: "Re: ANSI X3H4 meeting next week"
• In-reply-to: Gio Wiederhold: "Re: ANSI X3H4 meeting next week"

Message-id: <9110042118.AA00520@venera.isi.edu>
To: Gio Wiederhold <gio@earth.stanford.edu>
Cc: neches@isi.edu, Marianne Siroker <siroker@eclipse.stanford.edu>,
        sowa@watson.ibm.com, SRKB@isi.edu, INTERLINGUA@isi.edu,
        KR-ADVISORY@isi.edu, GINSBERG@t.stanford.edu, SKPEREZ@mcimail.com,
        neches@isi.edu
Reply-To: neches@isi.edu
Subject: Re: ANSI X3H4 meeting next week 
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 04 Oct 91 11:31:02 -0700.
             <CMM.0.90.2.686601062.gio@earth.Stanford.EDU> 
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 91 14:16:08 PDT
From: Robert Neches <neches@isi.edu>

>For our mechanical systems I would prefer that a single module NOT consider
>multiple ontologies (near-)simultanously.  Few humans are good a keeping two
>sets of books distinct, even when motivated by the IRS.
>On the other hand, layering, where one module reasons about the ontology of
>another module, seems fairly managable (as .. this person makes that
>statement, because his/her background is such and so --) seems to managable
>if we can abstract concepts as background, scope, contex, and reasoning power.

Gio,

  Perhaps I should have made myself clearer about time frames.  I believe that
individual modules which can maintain multiple conflicting ontologies are
ultimately necessary.  However, I think I'll retired in my rocking chair before
we have them working.  In views on the near term, in fact, I think I'm actually
more conservative than you: I view the kind of layering you describe as
something to work up to rather than something we're clearly ready for.

-- Bob