>
>So, the thrust of my argument goes like this. If
>we are modelling the domain, we need to look at
>the domain.
>Is it true that every object in every domain has an identifier? (01)
No. (The assumption that every thing has a name
amounts to the 'substitutional interpretation' of
the quantifiers, which has been thoroughly
trashed and isn't viable. It doesn't even work
for OWL.) (02)
>I think not, so we need to accommodate objects without identifiers. (03)
Well, we have to simply agree that such things
can exist. It doesn't take much more than that to
'accommodate' them. Some consequences might bite
you, though, eg closed-world assumptions cannot
be relied upon in general. (04)
>Do identifiers exist in the domain? I think so. (05)
Why not? They seem, like pretty simple things.
But we have to allow people who aren't interested
in them to ignore them. (06)
>If they do, do we know what they are? (07)
They are names, which are a subset of character
strings. (In fact, I'd suggest, Unicode character
strings, which allows a very wide-ranging kind of
vocabulary, including things like Braille,
LabaNotation and linear B). (08)
>I think it is not clear that we do. (09)
See above. Mind you, Im not saying that I know
how to distinguish character strings which in
some sense 'really are' names from other, merely
accidental, character strings. But I don't think
I need to, to allow them into the domain. (010)
Our IKRIS project made a small start on this. In
IKL, all character strings are in the domain and
they are all 'potential' names. A string gets to
be a name when it is used as one in the language,
ie when it is used in a formula. For those, we
have a special rule that relates the name's
meaning to the name OF the name. Its very simple:
if you give a character sting as an argument to
the special function tnb (thing named by), its
value is required to be whatever that character
string would denote if you were to use it as a
name. Formally, (011)
(= (tnb 'name') name) (012)
This is a very simple, elementary, basic rule,
but it allows quite a lot to be done. For
example, in IKL you can say that a list L of
names is a 'closed world' for a predicate P by an
axiom which quantifies over character strings: (013)
(forall ((s charstring))(iff (P (tnb s))(ListMember s L))) (014)
The fun part s that this kind of claim is usually
assumed to require the use of a nonmonotonic
logic, but the naming rule allows one to step
around that kind of complication. (015)
Pat (016)
>
>I suspect this is enough to get our discussion going.
>
>Regards,
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.3.0/758 -
>Release Date: 12/04/2007 11:52
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (017)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|