Re: ANSI X3H4 meeting next weekGio Wiederhold <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 91 11:31:02 PDT
From: Gio Wiederhold <email@example.com>
Cc: Marianne Siroker <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, SRKB@isi.edu, INTERLINGUA@isi.edu, KR-ADVISORY@isi.edu,
Subject: Re: ANSI X3H4 meeting next week
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 02 Oct 91 10:18:17 PDT
<I am catching up with mail in inverse order)
For our mechanical systems I would prefer that a single module NOT consider
multiple ontologies (near-)simultanously. Few humans are good a keeping two
sets of books distinct, even when motivated by the IRS.
On the other hand, layering, where one module reasons about the ontology of
another module, seems fairly managable (as .. this person makes that
statement, because his/her background is such and so --) seems to managable
if we can abstract concepts as background, scope, contex, and reasoning power.