I wrote: (01)
>> Having recently been exposed to some IKL-like phrasing, I have seen
>> things like:
>>
>> (WasSlowly (THAT (Buttered John Toast)))
>>
>> But that is most definitely NOT FOL. (02)
Pat wrote:
> True, but it is closely related to something that is legal CLIF (if not
> GOFOL):
>
> (and (WasSlowly A)
> (iff (A)(Buttered John Toast))
> )
>
> A here stands for the nested THAT-proposition. But although this is
> legal, I don't think its a very good analysis of the meaning. What it
> says is that the proposition that John buttered toast is slowly. Doesn't
> seem right to me. (03)
As Mike Gruninger pointed out, it was the activity that "WasSlowly", not
the proposition. (04)
And in a similar vein, Chris wrote:
> When I butter the
> toast, it seems reasonable to say that there is both a buttering
> relation between me and the toast as well as an event that is a
> buttering. If so, we don't want a single predicate indicating the
> buttering relation and the buttering-event property, but rather two
> predicates that are systematically correlated with one another. (05)
And, for better or worse, the Terry Halpin solution is to have two
operators:
- the "objectification", which extracts from (Buttered John Toast) the
"state of affairs" (which he defines as an "event" or "activity",
which to me abuses the term "state")
- the "nominalization", which refers to the proposition itself as the
object. (06)
I'm not sure whether this dichotomy really has the same sense as Chris's
distinction between the "event-property" and the "relation". (07)
To me, the "buttering relation" is the logical abstraction (the formal
notion) that stands for the event/activity. And I understand
"nominalization" or reference to the proposition to be a reference to
the formulation of the concept, as in a speech act, rather than a
reference to the concept itself -- the event of the buttering. (08)
To me, there are three things out there:
- the action/event itself, in which the toast is changing state and
John is an active agent in the change
- the concept of the action/event, in which I perceive and classify
the change in state of the toast as occurrence of the activity concept
"buttering" through the agency of John
- the proposition that formulates that concept, which is a linguistic
entity. (09)
And I am trying to sort out which distinction who is making. But
perhaps I have the wrong set of choices in the first place. (010)
-Ed (011)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (012)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|