[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> 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.
|
