Pat, (01)
I believe that is an important distinction: (02)
PH> You are referring to what I was calling a 'framework'. It
> amounts to an agreed metaphysics, in effect: agreeing to adopt
> a certain perspective on certain basic issues, often having
> to do with relationships and time and necessity, and to use
> a certain basic style of description when talking of these
> things. DOLCE is in this category. (03)
The arguments I was having with Chris P. and John B. were about
the underlying metaphysics. FOL, especially the Common Logic
version of FOL, is about as neutral as one can get. But any
strategy, such as DOLCE, which has metaphysical implications
drags us into a swamp of endless debates. (04)
What I have always complained about DOLCE is the notion of
"essential". That is a modal term, which, as I have said
many times, is always determined by some implicit principle
that makes something "essential". Instead of hiding behind
a little box in modal logic, anyone who claims something is
"essential" should state exactly what law or principle makes
it essential. (05)
The other point is about the number of different "entities"
implied by role language. I don't care what assumptions
anyone makes, but I'd like to see them formulate them by
stating exactly what they're quantifying over. Then they
can state explicitly exactly how those roles are related
to the things that are playing the roles. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|