Hi all,

my name is Lars Ludwig. I am a specialist for (personal) knowledge
management and developer of the artificialmemory.net semantic wiki.

Kind regads,

L.L.

Lars,
        I just reviewed your  web site at http://artificialmemory.net/
and  like your concept of Artificial memory.  I will take the liberty
of adding this to the vision of Person-Ontology.
        Do you see the need for the availability of  'standard'
representations of widely used knowledge structures, so two people can
compare their structures, and also so people can see what part of the
standard they don't fully understand?
        Also, I think that while a Person Ontology could be be
extended for person-related knowledge, but what about knowledge
dealing with non-personal topics?  For this, I believe we need a
standard upper ontology, so conformant extensions can be developed for
any number of domains and applications.   This would enable a Person-
Ontology to inteface with an external ontology, since they would both
be extended from the same upper ontology.
       Your (or anyone's) thoughts?
Jim Schoening

On Jul 18, 9:07 am, Lars Ludwig <m...@Lars-Ludwig.com> wrote:

Jim,

See my answers below.

:-) Lars

Your are right, it would be quite useful to have comparable information
structures, for computational comparison and for learning new aspects. One
has to keep in mind, however, that a shared formal information standard is
not the same as shared knowledge/understanding/acceptance. But that's simply
the usual problem of ontologies and standards.

This sounds reasonable. Only, maybe, that I don't always like abstractions
at upper ontology level (for them often being all too impracticable). And I
might find it difficult to draw a line between person-related knowledge and
non-personal topics. I have come to believe that intentionality is part of
nearly any concept. So one would have to elaborate a perspective on'
person-related' in order to be able to make a valid distinction.