|
Dick
While I have a general idea, as a reader, of what
you mean by:
at view = Ontolog Forum {
I do say to you od {
at time = 10 am yesterday {
I do walk from my house to
Raley's done;
};
} done;
};
I can get that more easily, in an informal
sense, if you just say "Yesterday I walked from my house to Raley's at
10am" in English.
My difficulty with using your MKr _expression_ for
any computing (which I assume is the point, otherwise I prefer to stick to
English) is not just that it lacks formal axioms but also any mechanism for
establishing agreement over the intended contextual meaning or
identity of the parts. How does my computer
determine, for example:
- when was "yesterday"? (for example, the
email sending date is not in your _expression_, but even if I
include it, can I assume that the date of sending of the message is the time at
which the statement contained in the message was made by you?)
- who is "I"?
- who is "you"?
- did you leave your house at 10am, or arrive at
Raley's then? Is that time approximate or exact? In which time zone?
- where and what is your house? do you have only
one?
- what do you mean by "walk"? Are you using this
merely to differentiate from going on some vehicle, or from some other means of
perambulation such as running, limping or crawling? If the latter, what criteria
do you use for establishing the distinction between them?
- who or what is Raley?
- is it Raley's house you went to, or some other
possession of Raley? Or is "Raley's" just the name of a place?
I'm OK with "from" and "to", though I suspect
others in this forum may have problems with those. I won't
venture into considering what it means for Ontolog Forum to be a
"view".
Almost no-one in this forum knows what you really
mean by that sentence because we are not familiar with your personal
context(s). Following John Sowa's remarks on
another thread, an _expression_ such as this one could be meaningful within a
defined message structure where the work has been done either by the
receiving party or by a standards body to agree upon the specific
semantics and the identities being referenced within the domain of
interest. In the "river" definition thread, we have seen that any term
which on the face of it has a generally understandable meaning can be infinitely
contextualized, and so axioms and formal agreement
mechanisms (standards or otherwise) are essential for successful
interoperability.
Godfrey
Godfrey Rust
Chief Data
Architect
Rightscom/Ontologyx
Linton House LG01
164/180 Union Street,
London SE1 0LH
www.rightscom.com
Direct +20 8579
8655
Rightscom Office +20 7620 4433
Mobile 07967
963674
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:00
AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR
programming language
On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Christopher
Menzel wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Richard H. McCullough
wrote:
>> mKR does describe actions, and reasoning about
actions.
>
> Actually, no, it does not. That is what you
*intend* the relevant
> expressions of mKR to mean, but mKR has
no semantics (the intentions
> locked in your own head don't
count), so there is nothing that makes
> it objectively the case
for all users that mKR's expressions mean what
> you
intend. Compare the semantics for OWL. There is a document
that
> everyone can read to find out precisely the semantics of
each of OWL's
> constructs. Similarly, google around for
"semantics of programming
> languages" for the same point
vis-a-vis programming languages. See,
> e.g., the book by
Winskel (http://tinyurl.com/cnjo9j).
>
> Chris Menzel
>
Chris
I have already said that I have not presented
a
formal semantic theory for mKR.
When you continue to harp on that
subject
in every email, the only effect is to
suppress
communication between us, and other
members
of this forum.
I think you totally underestimate the
context
which members of this forum share, as
fellow
human beings. Consider this mKR proposition.
at view = Ontolog Forum {
I do say to you od {
at time = 10 am yesterday {
I do walk from my house to
Raley's done;
};
} done;
};
I think every member of this forum will understand
the meaning of this proposition. They will know
the meaning of "I", "you", "walk", "my house", etc.
They may not know exactly where "my house"
is located, but if that is important to them, they
can ask me to make my context more explicit.
You seem to imply that mKR is of no value without
a formal semantic theory. I totally disagree. Further,
I assert that there are many meaningful exchanges
taking place in this forum, even though we have
no formal semantics for English.
Dick McCullough
______________________________________________________________________
This
email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more
information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Message
Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config
Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To
Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|