[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
Sent: 16 February 2009 19:34
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] skill
of definition - cont-ed
I've asked before but I guess it wouldn't hurt once again to request
that the use of HTML or RTF be avoided like the plague in list correspondence.
HTML/RTF formatted messages simply do not render consistently across all
mail programs and the result is often a mess -- what YOU see is definitely not
generally what OTHERS get when you treat your email program as if it were a
word processor. (I am using formatted mail in this message just to
illustrate the problem, as the attached message appears to me like a
typesetter's nightmare -- though for all I know it will render just fine in
some mailers.) In particular, it is often impossible to sort out who said
in messages that try to preserve past conversation.
I would advise emulating the format that John Sowa uses in his messages
for a consistent, easy to read, text-based mailing list style.
On Feb 16, 2009, at 1:10 PM, FERENC KOVACS wrote:
Well, whatever appears in space-time
exists, when it disappears it cease to exist. ( In a natural language when
and where often used interchangeably.)
I will have to come back
to this point later, now I must log off..
The crucial problem is the meaning of the
meaning. semantics is supposed to deal with and define it, but you snatched it
from linguists (who have not been able to define meaning properly anyway), but
to derive meaning from syntax parsing is a nonsense
Why? because the meaning of any word is
inclusive of its context. Now to define context we use approximation, first we
take one of the several faces of a concept (like from and content,
extension and intension, quantity and quality - and what has left been out so
far - generic and specific). Second, we use a definition, which should
be recursively reducible to object, propert or relation, then we can
check out what the participants knwo abput the subject, any connotatins and
some twenty other factors that are or may be appended to the knowledge of
a word. (can list you later). Now the more context is visible and perceivable
in the situation than less verbal supplement is required for
identification of anything spoken about. And vice versa.
Semantic analysis involves the transformation
of parts of speech, sentence patterns, etc. semantically equivalent
variations that finally all can be reduced to semantic primitives.
Subject to the knowledge of the people
involved aynthing said or written will be regarded and assessede as generic or
specific and understanding comes when a total picture is gathered, and no
knowledge is useful (cannot be acted upon) , unless it is specific
I'm definitely in favor of using logic for many purposes.
But note that stating the criteria in any version of logic
(even fuzzy logic) would do *nothing* to help us resolve
any of these questions.
Informal logic is the way out where I
could show the menatl operations of conceptualisation adn theri relations. That
model cab easily sort out the problems that you are stucjk with in producing ontologies.
Just a sideline why do you want tzo merge thinbgs instead iontegrating them?
Are you aware of the conditions of integration? (of concepts)
With respect and willingness to help
+44 7770654068 (Vodafone)
+44 7770654068 (Vodafone)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1955 - Release Date: 02/16/09 06:55:00