[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Patrick Durusau <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 13:00:51 -0500
Message-id: <20060502180051.GQ96390@xxxxxxxx>
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 07:44:06PM -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> ...
> I think I now understand where the discussion jumped the track. Let me 
> see if I can walk through it and you can correct me if I stray.
> As I understand your use of "representation" with reference to FOL and 
> KR, you are saying that the "representation" (I would say syntax) to be 
> useful must be defineable by FOL. Yes?     (01)

Well, the notion of "definable" there needs to be spelled out carefully,
but it's probably clear enough for purposes here.  So yes, something
like that, although I wouldn't want to deny that, within certain limited
contexts, rather vague, informal representations might nonetheless be
useful.  But sharing and reasoning require representations based on
rigorous syntactic and semantic foundations.  In principle at least,
done right, there should be a meaning-preserving mapping from (most) any
well-defined representation system into the language of first-order
logic.  (Again, for purposes here, I am ignoring higher-order and
non-classical systems.)    (02)

> That is that in your opinion any useful syntax or model for subject
> maps would of necessity have to be mappable in FOL?    (03)

Pretty much, with the qualification noted.    (04)

> OK, that is completely different from what I was inartfully trying to
> say.
> I have little or no concern for syntaxes at least as far as the TMRM.
> My concerns there are:
> 1. How can any author identify any subject they choose? Ans: key/value 
> pairs, with the proviso that key are references to subject proxies.
> 2. How can any author specify when two or more proxies represent the 
> same subject? Ans: This is not defined by the TMRM. It would certainly 
> be possible to use FOL but also non-FOL logics     (05)

What sorts of non-first-order logics do you have in mind?    (06)

> Sorry, it was my sloppy use of the term "mapping" which I was hearing
> differently than is really clear from either the TMRM or the
> presentation.    (07)

Okey dokey.    (08)

-chris    (09)

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    (010)

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