Len (01)
My mKR language is a general purpose knowledge representation language
which focuses on the real world. Every sentence has an explicit context
which disambiguates the terms of the sentence. (02)
My idea of meaning is an English paraphrase, not a model theory of
possible worlds. (03)
See http://mKRmKE.org/ (04)
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality and semantics. [Was: Thing and Class] (05)
> Pat,
>
> As you concluded this very intellectually challenging debate with John,
> and two of you finally agreed to disagree, - let me see what it means for
> software developer like myself.
>
>>
>>
>>On Sep 16, 2008, at 7:30 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
>>
>>> Pat and Chris,
>>>
>>> JFS>>> A Tarski-style model is a set of entities and a set of
>>>>>> relations among those entities. Those entities and relations are
>>>>>> *approximate* representations of aspects of the world according to
>>>>>> some ontology.
>>>
>>> CM>> Sure. Every model leaves out information that is found in the
>>>>> piece of the world that the model represents.
>>>
>>> PH> Represents? Ouch. If there is a 'represents' relationship between
>>>> models and reality, then all our axiomatic ontologies must be given
>>>> a two-stage semantics, in which model theory describes the first
>>>> stage of interpretation, yielding a new kind of 'representation'
>>>> which then needs another, presumably different, semantic theory to
>>>> relate it to actuality.
>>>
>>> Welcome to reality. As George Box said and I quoted in my previous
>>> note, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
>>
>>Its not reality. In fact, we all manage extremely well with a single-
>>layered semantics called model theory.
>
> Most of software developers would probably say: "we all manage extremely
> well without it", and many of us might add "without any semantics at all".
> Few of us may note that we only need operational semantics. But none of us
> will say what you said. So I don't know who do you refer to as "we all",
> and what do you call to "manage extremely well".
>
>
>>This two-level idea is a
>>chimera, and an intellectual dead end. You have argued for the idea,
>>but do you have even an outline or a sketch of what the second, model-
>>to-reality, semantic theory looks like? In order to give it, you need
>>to somehow describe reality mathematically. In full generality. OK,
>>I'm all ears.
>
> I would say that most people manage extremely well without "describing
> reality mathematically". In fact most believe that it is impossible to do
> so.
>
>>
>>> PH> Not only has this project never been undertaken to completion,
>>>> I don't think its needed.
>>>
>>> That is why 20th century analytic philosophy has trivialized the
>>> subject to the point where the total number of bookshelves devoted
>>> to philosophy in a large Barnes & Noble store is equal to the
>>> number devoted to Sudoku puzzles.
>>
>>This comment is completely off the wall.
>>
>
> I think it is literally "off the wall" of any profitable book store. Or
> else it would quickly go out of business. Because the semantics you are
> finding so useful are actually totally useless for real world that
> they..., should I say represent ?
>
>>This is such rubbish that I won't even try to sketch a response. Which
>>*semantic* problems are being ignored?
>
> I'd like to ask what *semantic* problems are NOT ignored by software
> community. Certainly Semantic Web community ignores most of them beginning
> with most basic identity problems.
>
> The only practical attempt to address real world semantic problems that I
> know about is Chris Partridge book "Business Objects", which you will not
> find on the wall of any "respectable" bookstore (because it is simply too
> good to be in popular demand)
>
> --Len
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/ (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|