[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) ., ., " <asaegyn@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:02:38 -0400
Message-id: <5ab1dc970809242002j825ac79i30e6c6f8376c3235@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hello all,

Long time lurker, first time poster, just a couple of thoughts re the discussions thus far.

First, @John I really enjoy your site and the papers you have posted. Thanks for making it all available online.

@Pat, I love the resource provided w/ the IKL guide (it clarified several issues I have with CL too) and have a few questions about it that i'll ask later.


Regarding the question at hand:
I have some questions / observations about the connection between FOL, the axioms one writes and the resultant models one develops using inference rules. Correct me if i'm wrong, but this is what I believe was termed as the 1 stage method; in contrast to what I gather John has been proposing as a two-stage method.

My question is thus (having an interest in (semi)-automated empirical ontology validation):
Given that any model constructed from FOL ostensibly represents reality, is not the one-stage method in effect a two-stage method? The main difference is that we have humans implicitly conducting the final stage (of seeing whether a particular model _corresponds to_ reality)?

Would not making explicit how models correlate to 'gestured' entities in some relevant 'reality' be what John is suggesting?

Am I missing something?

Thank you kindly,


(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,

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    (01)

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