On May 9, 2008, at 9:24 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> Chris,
>
> JFS>> A formal ontology is a prerequisite for a formal language
>>> of any kind. Many controlled NLs are just versions of logic
>>> that use the vocabulary and syntax of some natural language.
>
> CM> This I do not understand, unless perhaps you are building
>> more into the notion of a formal language than I do.
>
> It is true that one can define an uninterpreted language by
> grammar rules that have no associated semantics of any kind,
> as in your example {ab, aabb, aaabbb, aaaabbbb, ...}.
>
> Such a language would have a syntax, but no semantics associated
> with any sentence, no sentence would make any claims about what
> does or does not exist, and no sentence would have any truth
> value in any domain.
>
> But since the discussion was about controlled natural languages,
> all of which are designed to talk about some domain, I was not
> thinking of the option of uninterpreted languages.
>
> Therefore, I should qualify my first sentence as follows:
>
> A formal ontology is a prerequisite for a formal language
> that says anything meaningful about any subject domain.
>
> I apologize for unintentionally slighting an infinite family
> of meaningless languages. (01)
Well...all right then. On behalf of meaningless formal languages
everywhere, apology accepted. :-) (02)
-c (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|