> If "your" ontology was "correct", you could write one and be done
> with it. This is not a precisely correct expression of my meaning
> however; you'll always have to be changing ontology at some level:
> that's the point after all.
>
> The more precisely correct expression is that you could write a so
> called "top level ontology" or "ontology in the domain of domains".
> Use this top level ontology (or things derived from it) to describe
> your (changing) network ontology in. If you specify top level
> correctly, it is timeless, even when the ontologies within it are not.
>
> The ability to produce this top level ontology is an area of open
> debate. I appear to fall firmly within the camp that says "this is
> possible, want to see how?".
If there exists a current body of work that is sufficient and necessary,
we, the practitioners in the field, will work with it. We don't
necessarily want/need something that is "complete" (and possibly more
complex). Workable is great. Flaws can be fixed later, in a revision
somewhere.
> We're all interested in solutions to our configuration problems.
> I'm quite happy to hear that you've produced a model that works for
> you. The model I need is a much bigger hammer.
Not a math scientist, just an admin,
Francis
|
|
