ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and OntologyinMetaphysics

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Chris Partridge" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:16:02 -0000
Message-id: <000701c768d9$7956c4b0$0200a8c0@POID7204>
Chris,    (01)

I think you are being a little disingenuous here.    (02)

If you say:    (03)

a) FOL is an excellent tool for describing ontologies
b) You have the "usual sort of first-order language in which predicates
cannot also be arguments to other predicates".
c) Properties are described using predicates.    (04)

AND    (05)

d) A significant number of the properties are properties of properties.    (06)

This would seem a bit odd, as one could not describe the d) properties -
seemly inconsistent with a).    (07)

Of course, if no-one was claiming a), that FOL was any good for describing
ontologies, then there would be no seeming inconsistency, but I thought that
is what was being claimed here.    (08)

Anyway, the point seems to be that it is b) that gives in the current scheme
of things. That is one does NOT have the "usual sort of first-order language
in which predicates cannot also be arguments to other predicates". I have no
argument with this.    (09)

Chris    (010)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher
Menzel
Sent: 16 March 2007 19:20
To: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and
OntologyinMetaphysics    (011)

> CM> if you are talking about the usual sort of first-order
> language in which predicates cannot also be arguments to other
> predicates, then of course there will be loss of expressivity.
>
> If one interpreted this as saying that there are no higher order  
> properties,
> then surely that would be an ontological implication.    (012)

Surely it would not; it would be a logical howler.  From the  
inability to say there are Xs nothing whatever follows about the  
existence or nonexistence of Xs.    (013)

-chris    (014)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (015)


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.12/724 - Release Date: 16/03/2007
12:12    (016)


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.12/724 - Release Date: 16/03/2007
12:12    (017)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (018)

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