• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:16:31 -0500

At 08:50 AM 12/22/00 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote (about ontology):
>But it can serve as a foundation for a discourse 
>which in process redefines the ontological instance. 
>That is how we evolve a system using standard models 
>as initial conditions.  It can be an input and 
>not necessarily, a control.  So, no not concrete, 
>but definitely mortar.

Ontology as mortar fits my argument quite nicely - it's convenient glue for
sticking heavy things together, but it's damn near impossible to reuse
after it has set, has almost no flexibility, and it isn't very good about
changing position, either.

I'd suggest we stay away from masonry altogether in this business.  I find
your metaphor more convincing than your argument, at least as far as
ontology is concerned.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• References:
  • RE: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Success factors for the Web and Semantic Web
• Next by Date: Re: Success factors for the Web and Semantic Web
• Previous by thread: RE: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)
• Next by thread: Re: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread