At 10:08 AM 6/16/2007, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Hi Azamat
>
>this argument began by defending the proper and
>legitimate usage of the expression 'concepts'
>and related terms to the discourse, and why some
>of us (glad I am not alone) would be very
>uncomfortable without it. and why some of us have a problem with it etc
>
>Just reading this nice article that centers on conceptualization, see par 2
>
><http://www.loa-cnr.it/Guizzardi/FAIA.pdf>http://www.loa-cnr.it/Guizzardi/FAIA.pdf
> (01)
Seems to involve just the systematic conmerging
which I am complaining about. Thus in the
beginning we have (fairly systematically) views
according to which conceptualizations exist in the minds of users of language: (02)
>We name the latter
>domain abstractions. Take as an example the
>domain of genealogical relations in reality. A certain
>conceptualization of this domain can be
>constructed by considering concepts such as Person, Man, Woman,
>Father, Mother, Offspring, being the father of,
>being the mother of, among others. By using these concepts,
>we can articulate a domain abstraction (i.e., a
>mental model) of certain facts in reality such as, for instance,
>that a man named John is the father of another man named Paul.
>Conceptualizations and Abstractions are
>immaterial entities that only exist in the mind of the user or a
>community of users of a language. (03)
Later, however, when the definitional rubber hits
the road, we have passages such as the following: (04)
>Definition 1 (conceptualization): a
>conceptualization C is an intensional structure .W,D,Â. such that W is
>a (non-empty) set of possible worlds, D is the
>domain of individuals and  is the set of n-ary relations
>(concepts) that are considered in C. The
>elements r Î Â are intensional (or conceptual) relations with
>signatures such as rn:W ® Ã(Dn), so that each
>n-ary relation is a function from possible worlds to n-tuples
>of individuals in the domain. (05)
I am assuming, here, that the actual world is one
of the possible worlds, and that individuals in
the actual world such as Arnold Schwarzenegger
belong to the relevant domains and ranges of
these n-ary relations. This move, with its talk
of 'intensional (or conceptual) relations'
addresses a completely different notion of what a
conceptualization might be, I'm afraid. (06)
BS (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)
|