[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology, Information Models and the 'Real World': C

To: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:19:15 -0700
Message-id: <p0623091ec28255ba0c9b@[]>
>Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:
>...  I guess that
>(ist TemporalContextDay06-16-2006 (that (Dead Osama-Bin-Laden)))
>should be read as (formatted for clarity):
>the proposition which corresponds
>    in the context TemporalContextDay06-16-2006
>    to the sentence (Dead Osama-Bin-Laden)
>is true    (01)

No, that is NOT the IKL interpretation. (that 
(Dead Osama-bin-Laden)) is a particular thing, 
and what it is is independent of the context.    (02)

>rather than as
>the proposition which corresponds
>    to the sentence (Dead Osama-Bin-Laden)
>is true
>    in the context TemporalContextDay06-16-2006    (03)

That is a better way to express the intended 
meaning. But the strict logical meaning is merely    (04)

the proposition which corresponds to the sentence (Dead Osama-bin-Laden)
bears the relation ist to
the context TemporalContextDay06-16-2006    (05)

>This would make sense in the light of the preceding discussion.
>Further in the IKL Guide, I find axioms such as
>(forall (c)(iff (A-clear c)
>    (forall (p ...) (iff
>      (ist c (AND p ...)))
>      (and (ist c p)(ist c (AND ...)))
>    ))
>where 'p' is used to refer to propositions, not sentences, yet there
>still is context-dependence.    (06)

No, you are reading it wrong. 'p' refers to 
propositions, indeed. Names denote in IKL 
completely independently from any context. So the 
'p' in the quantifier and the 'p' in '(ist c p)' 
denote, always, the very same p. All this axiom 
asserts is a condition on the relation ist.    (07)

>(ist c (that s))
>could be read as above, to assure that it is the sentence, not the
>proposition that is context-dependent, how should
>(ist c p)
>be read?    (08)

That the relation ist holds between c and p; 
which we, giving this relation a special 
significance, can re-transcribe by saying 'p is 
true in c'. Since the formal IKL semantics only 
defines truth, and not truth-in-a-context, we can 
take this latter phrase to mean whatever we like: 
and here, we take it to mean that a suitable 
instance of this 'ist' relation is IKL-true.    (09)

Pat    (010)

>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
>    (011)

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    (012)

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    (013)

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