Thanks Azamat.
On 07/07/2009 00:01, "Azamat" <
abdoul@...> wrote:
> HG: We have revamped a lot of the RKB and RKBExplorer infrastructure since
> last
> exposing it here, so you may well like to give it another visit at
>
http://www.rkbexplorer.com/>
> Visited and found some ontology tendered as a reference ontology,
>
http://www.aktors.org/ontology/. Here are the top lines:
> "A very simple top-level. We define something called THING, which is the
> top-level concept in the ontology. We then distinguish two basic
> types of 'things': TANGIBLE-THING, something that has some physicality, and
> INTANGIBLE-THING, something which has not. We use a very open definition
> of being tangible: obviusly a physical object is tangible, but also a
> sub-atomic particle is tangible, even if some of them are very tricky (you
> do not see them)
> you only see the trace they leave behind. Also a piece of software will be
> considered a tangible thing, it is something that you can see on a floppy
> disk.
> In contrast an algorithm will be an intangible, although the file that
> contains its implementation will be a tangible thing."
> Something more in this line: Intangible Thing is not tangible...Tangible
> Thing, something which is not intangible... Quantity is of two subclasses:
> Number and Physical Quantity, etc.
The ontology is not part of our project.
It was developed in the AKT Project, which ended a couple of years ago.
I would say there is no maintenance activity on the AKT ontologies.
We just use it as one of the ones we use, partially because there was
existing data defined - we just take it as read; I guess it is legacy.
> Wonder is it an experimental trial or completed work? Thanks.
By "it" I assume you mean the RKB and RKBExplorer.
It is neither - it is intended to be a tool for practical use, and is the
subject of continuing improvement, we hope.
Thank you for your interest.
Regards
Hugh
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
http://standardontology.com>
