[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Adverbs (was Anthropology of Colour)

To: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:22:15 -0400
Message-id: <47DFFA47.8020709@xxxxxxxx>
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 
> (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 
  - 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)

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