[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 11:40 17/04/2003 -0400, Roger L. Costello wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
>I have written a white paper[1] titled:
>
> "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"
>[1] http://www.xfront.com/avoiding-syntactic-rigor-mortis.html
Says <q>all parties participating in an exchange of data can compose any
physical expression </q>.
Isn't is necessary for the same grouping to agree terminology?
I guess this is where the human aspects come in?
Take some term, I understand it, David Carlisle understands it. Yet the
depth of
understanding is miles apart. How to assess each users usage wrt some ...
standard semantic?
If we attempt to communicate without that shared understanding its going to be
a weak form of communications?
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had what appeared to be a strange
conversation,
which is finally resolved to be two views of the same term.
Is ontology ownership destined to be a stumbling block?
regards DaveP
|
