Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Thanks Henry. That points in the direction I suspected it did. In a sense, as the RDF folks pointed out to us, a weak ontology. That is not a criticism. Weak ontologies are a fact of life. Living and or any adaptive systems have a way of overcoming constraints, so at the top levels, hard constraints are *typically* artificial or viewpoint-oriented. Depending on the object of the model, a weak ontology may be quite precise (or as precise as is useful). len From: ht@c... [mailto:ht@c...] "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> writes: > How does one make an abstract type "generous"? Judicious use of wildcards and/or elements with ur-type so they can be substituion group heads w/o much constraint. > Serious question because of one design I've > worked on that insists on a primary schema > with derived secondary schemas. To me the > term "generous" resonates with what is to > be achieved in that design, so I would like > to understand you more formally. Understood -- I wish I could say something more formally.
|
