I have popped back in this thread to resume it at a
more logical point to introduce the simple MACK way:
ButtersSlowly Implies Butters.
Then if you want you might also for some multiple
ButtersSlowly Implies DoesSlowly.
Then with John as subject and toast as object, the
obvious factual implications hold.
If you wished to make the distinction, and all else
being equal, you may choose which of the two MIed base properties you regard as
the verb and which the adverb, even though "does slowly butteringly",
for example, would seem rather odd.
The MACK 'Implies' is thus like rdfs:subPropertyOf,
but with the major difference (to repeat my
point from my "2nd instalment") that the type of John-the-slow-doer would be
e.g. SlowlyDoer, and not Human or whatever else may be the subjecttype
of Butters, or SlowBreakfaster (to take a more extreme example) of
In general, and as we shall see in more detail in
my 3rd instalment, such abstraction-level distinctions can
be very important from many semantic points of view, including security and
privacy. (We shall also see how there is not in general that kind
of useless explicit multiplication of fine subtype
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 5:23
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Adverbs (was
Anthropology of Colour)
At 7:23 PM -0400 3/17/08, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
Christopher Menzel wrote:
>> I wrote:
is the point I thought should not be lost: Formalization
>>>> adjectives, including colour attribution, into
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
wouldn't say for a second that predicates in FOL have any
>>> connection with verbs in English.
reflection, I have to agree. Logical predicates seem to
represent nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs without
> Not adverbs, typically. In a standard
logical language, sentences like
> (1) John buttered the
> (2) John buttered the toast
> would have to be represented using completely
different predicates, one
> for "buttered" and another for "slowly
buttered", e.g., "Bjt" and "Sjt"
> or "Buttered(john,thetoast)" and
> is very unsatisfactory,
however, as sentence (1) obviously follows from
> (2), whereas "Bjt"
obviously does not follow from "Sjt".
Chris is quite right, of
Having recently been exposed to some IKL-like phrasing, I have
(WasSlowly (THAT (Buttered John
But that is most definitely NOT
True, but it is closely related to something that is legal CLIF (if not
(and (WasSlowly A)
(iff (A)(Buttered John
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.
National Institute of Standards &
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
Tel: +1 301-975-3528
FAX: +1 301-975-4694
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect
consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government
8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/