" The Potential for Recognizing Errors in a Dataset Using a Computer Memory Resident Data Structure Based on the Phaneron of C. S. Peirce ." Jane Campbell Mazzagatt . http://www.error06.econ.vt.edu/Mazzagatti.doc
The examples given in this paper are word and phrase sequences of characters, i.e., character sequences constituting words and then those word-sequences constituting sentence sequences, and apparently so forth upward. However, there is no notion of semantics at all: it is purely a syntactic data structure. To think that syntactic sequences will somehow lead to a schema-less and semantics-free data modeling capability seems to me naive. Also, I don't understand the paper's notion of "variable". What kind of variable is this?
I think this is possibly a useful data structure for representing uninterpreted (syntactic) data, and only that.
Does anyone think that the third (interpretant) is really anything like the interpretation of the sign? I think this is mumbo-jumbo utilizing the phraseology of Peirce. What can one make of the following, for example:
" To make the discussion less abstract the symbols from the alphabet are used as the initial SIGN-nodes or sensors and diagrammed as events from the text universe." There is a lot of quoting from Peirce, but as always, such implicit appeals to authority find short-shrift in this forum -- or at least, I hope they do.
But I invite folks to weigh in on this topic. Perhaps you see more than I do. Please do correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation. Is there any semantic value in this?
Also, it scares me that this data structure has been patented.
My initial interpretation: this is hogwash if it is promoted more than the syntactic data structure that it is.