[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology

To: Rob Freeman <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:41:18 -0500
Message-id: <48C7F8AE.3000201@xxxxxxx>
On 9/10/08 8:23 AM, Rob Freeman wrote:
> Pat,
> You've caught me out. I haven't been following Ontolog. Why are you
> replying now to this early message from a long thread eight months
> ago?
Probably because I just changed email servers, and it somehow 
popped up where I hadnt noticed it before. Just ignore it, sorry.    (01)

Pat    (02)

> Do you think it is relevant to something on Ontolog recently? What
> caused you to suddenly bring it up again?
> Perhaps someone could give me a quick summary of what's been discussed
> on Ontolog over the last eight months.
> Best,
> Rob
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Rob Freeman wrote:
>>> Pat Hayes, and anyone else looking for ways to extract meaning from the Web.
>>> General meaningful classes are accessible by clustering words on their
>>> context. Classes found in that way don't have names until you give
>>> them names, and we have still have no way of reasoning with them
>> Exactly. These are not classes in any sense useful for ontology
>> engineering.
>>> , but
>>> basic meaningful classes can be found.
>>> See for instance Hinrich Schuetze's "Dimensions of Meaning":
>>> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/23424.html.
>>> I don't see why it should not prove possible to reason with classes so
>>> defined.
>> You may be right. However, this paper was written in 1991, and AFAIK
>> nobody in the intervening 17 years has yet come up with any way to
>> perform such reasoning. Until someone does, I will not hold my breath.
>>>  I believe indeed that natural language can be thought of as a
>>> formal system over such classes (a formal system as distinct from a
>>> grammar.)
>> You may believe what you like, but the overwhelming empirical evidence
>> suggests that natural language is not a formal system of any kind.  But
>> I would be delighted if you could prove this wrong, by demonstrating
>> that it is indeed a formal system.
>> Pat
>     (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>