Archives: February 2006

A Minimalist Upper Ontology

A title guaranteed to scare off just about everyone: if you're not familiar with work on upper ontologies, the title is just opaque. If you are familiar, you'll likely think that the combination of "minimalist" with "upper ontology" is an oxymoron. So, now that I've gotten rid of all my audience, I can probably say just about anything. And will. Let's review our position here. For two systems to communicate they must commit to a common ontology. It doesn't matter how elegant or clever your ontology is; if no one else shares it, you don't participate in anything broader than your own ontology. Given that there are three main positions:

Read more

A Minimalist Upper Ontology

A title guarenteed to scare off just about everyone: if you’re not familiar with work on upper ontologies, the title is just opaque. If you are familiar, you’ll likely thing that the combination of "minimalist" with "upper ontology" is an oxymoron.

Read more