[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Avoiding Hobson's Choice In Choosing An ntology

To: "[ontolog-forum] [ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Bill Andersen <andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:36:03 -0400
Message-id: <CBCC532E-9A78-4269-8BA9-255027C4C056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chris pretty well covered all the main points, but I couldn't resist...    (01)

On Apr 29, 2006, at 20:10 , Chris Menzel wrote:    (02)

> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:19:55AM -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> ...Finally, it is FOL that imposes limitations on mapping.
>> Assume that we have an experienced analyst that is reviewing
>> information that has been recorded in a subject map using subject
>> proxies. Due to their experience, they have reached a conclusion that
>> what appears to be two distinct individuals is actually one. A
>> conclusion that would result in merging proxies that represent the
>> purchaser of weaponized anthrax and a recent entry into the US.
>> They may not have an articulable basis for that conclusion and so FOL
>> is not going to be of any use.
> I'm not at all sure what an "articulable basis for a conclusion"  
> is, but
> why does one need such a basis any more in the case of an identity
> assertion than in any other case?  If the analyst comes to believe  
> that
> S1 is in Afghanistan, she writes: In(Afghanistan,S1).  If she comes to
> believe that individuals S1 and S2 are one and the same, she writes:
> S1 = S2.    (03)

I believe it is more the case that Patrick is confused between:    (04)

1) Syntax (he's talking about proxies) versus semantics (what the  
proxies are taken to denote)    (05)

2) Belief (in one analyst's judgement, A=B)    (06)

3) Logic (there is no reason that the sentence 'A=B' could not be  
made the subject of reference, such that whatever basis a believer  
may have for believing what it expresses could be articulated formally)    (07)

It has been difficult for me to understand many of Patrick's (and  
related correspondents') comments that imply that TM and other  
similar proposals somehow transcend the "limitations" of logic for  
the purposes of doing "ontology".  I'm quite certain Patrick and I  
mean something very different by the term.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>