[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] FW: A different approach to ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 14:55:32 -0500
Message-id: <DD048071-92FD-4D4B-8791-362AD2A77444@xxxxxxxx>
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)

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