Rob Freeman wrote:
''But I would like to invite those hitherto limited to one or other logical
projection to consider a more fundamental topology for meaning.'' (01)
That's fundamental ontology designed to give the single fundamental
structure [categorical system, conceptual organization, pattern of
relationships...] for all basic meanings. (02)
''We need to generalize contexts. The question is whether we can capture all
generalizations in one abstracted representation'' (03)
That's again the foundation ontology aimed to provide the single underlying
context for all kinds of contexts, theories, models, and schemes. (04)
Congrats, you are on the right way, Rob. (05)
Azamat Abdoullaev (06)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Freeman" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR (was Thing and Class) (07)
> Dick,
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Richard H. McCullough
> <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rob Freeman" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Richard H. McCullough
>>> <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More generally, I agree with you that "the meaning of a sentence
>>>>> depends on the context of the thinker/speaker". The problem with your
>>>>> mKR formalism is I just don't think you will be able to enumerate all
>>>>> these different "meanings", list all distinguishing cases, etc.
>>>> ...
>>>> ***** I'm not looking at all possible cases ("possible worlds"),
>>>> ***** only the particular case appropriate for a particular
>>>> ***** sentence.
>>>
>>> How many distinct sentences do you want to be able to deal with?
>> ** Any number.
>
> Then that is the number I think you will have difficulty enumerating.
>
> We need to generalize contexts. The question is whether we can capture
> all generalizations in one abstracted representation, or whether we
> need to constantly make new generalizations about specific cases on
> the fly. I think the later (c.f. Chris Anderson's "Google" argument.)
>
> -Rob
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|