[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] CL, CG, IKL and the relationship between symbols in

To: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:41:00 -0500
Message-id: <477B15DC.7010702@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat,    (01)

I am not begging the question.  I am deliberately avoiding it.
See my response to Paola in a previous note -- in which I
recommend throwing out as much terminology as possible.    (02)

PH> ... you have defined "context" here to be a syntactic
 > construction which is intended to denote or represent what are
 > more commonly (and I think more correctly) called 'contexts'.
 > This rather begs the question about what contexts (in the usual
 > sense, i.e. the things your constructions denote or represent)
 > actually *are*.    (03)

As you have observed, people use the word 'context' in a large
number of confusing ways.  Instead of trying to unravel all of
the confusion, I am using the boxes with nested propositions
to analyze and represent what is being said.    (04)

In the process, I avoid using the word 'context' as much as
possible -- I just write CGs inside boxes.  If pressed, I call
them 'context boxes', but most of the time, I just say that
they're boxes used to delimit the propositions stated by the
CGs inside the boxes.    (05)

PH> You are here assuming then that the 'convinced' in this phrase
 > is unanalysed, simple a three-place relation, which is how I
 > will represent it also.    (06)

> (Convinced Tom Sam (that (not (possible (that 
 >    (exists ((x Cow))(JumpOver x Moon))) ))) )    (07)

Except for some syntactic details, that is how I would translate
the CG boxes to IKL.    (08)

PH> Im not sure what you mean by 'the next time step' here, as
 > we are talking about a logic rather than a process specification.
 > But certainly it should be possible to write axioms allowing one
 > to infer things about Sam's beliefs after the convincing is done.    (09)

That is basically what I meant.  Your relation 'later' corresponds
to the dyadic relation 'next', which I frequently use.    (010)

PH> Exactly. One would use multiple ontologies, rather than a
 > special logic, to represent the complexities of the various kinds
 > of context.    (011)

In that case, we seem to be fairly close.  What you have suggested
is essentially what I was planning to do to map CG boxes to IKL.    (012)

But Chris seemed to indicate that his position was quite a bit
different from what I had intended.    (013)

John    (014)

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    (015)

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