![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Both these sections are opinion pieces written as fact. For example, many supporters of relativism would dispute the positivist tone of "If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong."
It would be better to say "Many who believe that an upper ontology is possible would say that if any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong."
These sections should be re-written to describe the points of argument, not make statements as if they are facts.
Perhaps both sections should be deleted until they are updated, including citing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badja (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
TODO: We should have a mention of the PROTON upper ontology model here. [1] (Olimatis (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC))
The DOLCE link (to the DOLCE pdf) is dead. Suggesting we use this link instead: http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html --Seymoure Frye (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I did a Google search for "upper ontology" site:en.wikipedia.org and came up with a few more candidates.
Most likely candidate.
Main article: Gellish |
From the article: "The upper ontology part of Gellish currently consists of more than 1500 concepts of which about 650 are standard relation types. In addition to that the Gellish Dictionary-Taxonomy contains more than 40,000 concepts."
Main article: MOD Ontology |
From the article: "The MOD Ontology is the name given to the upper ontology intended to support the UK Ministry of Defence's Enterprise Architecture Programme, specifically MODAF."
Main article: OntoCAPE |
From the article: "OntoCAPE is a large-scale ontology for the domain of Computer-Aided Process Engineering (CAPE). It can be downloaded free of charge from the OntoCAPE Homepage"
Main article: ThoughtTreasure |
Defunct but of historical interest?
From the article: "ThoughtTreasure contains a total of 27,000 concepts and 51,000 assertions. It has an upper ontology and several domain-specific lower ontologies such as for clothing, food, and music." and " History ThoughtTreasure was begun by Erik Mueller in December 1993. The first version was released on April 28, 1996. Mueller established the company Signiform in 1997 to pursue commercial applications of ThoughtTreasure. However, the company was unsuccessful and Signiform closed its doors in 2000. In 2000, Erik Mueller moved to IBM Research, where he was a member of the team that developed Watson (computer). On July 31, 2015, ThoughtTreasure was made available on GitHub. "
Least likely candidate.
Main article: GNOWSYS |
GNU software to explore semantic computing that is not even released yet and whose Wikipedia article appears to have been written by the authors of the software. I found one sentence lifted wholesale from the project description page.
--Golden herring (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
My quote about ontological warfare was given at GCA 1999 in Philadelphia:
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/12/xml99/wrapup.html
I don't have the quote on paper, but I hope this mail is sufficient evidence Petermr (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a better link where the phrase is abstracted by a respected third party: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/12/xml99/keynote.html Petermr (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As of January 2012, the article had gained more essay-like wording, where it even waxed about the problems of religious schisms, warfare, societies that "have computers at all" or medieval Europe. Perhaps whole sentences should be removed or trimmed, as being off-topic tangents, which distract from the specific topic of "upper ontology". While the essay-like tone is common for academic discussions or other topics in the Theory of Knowledge, the tone of Wikipedia articles needs to be more narrow. Otherwise, there would be no end to various analogies about activities in "medieval Europe" or such. The article needs to be rewritten to keep it short and focused. See: WP:TONE. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed the article level tag. Just reviewed the first of the two Argument sections, didn bother with the second. Suggest they just be removed or move to a separate article. Lycurgus (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be precedent that any entry in the list be removed as soon as its main article is deleted, but this doesn't seem to have been done at least for DOLCE and COSMO. Any objections before we start removing content?
Or am I misunderstanding the inclusion criteria for the list? What should be done to enforce said criteria? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The table seems to lack a horizontal line. 81.135.40.247 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that there is at least one link (to http://micra.com/COSMO/) to a site outside of Wikipedia within the body of the article. This is not in accord with the External links policy. I'm adding a new section for External links and moving the Cosmo link there and then removing them from the article body. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)