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
>>>> mKR is a "Simple English", which
is easier for a computer to process, and would be easier for a human to learn,
because things like
>>>> number and tense are specified
in a simpler way.
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?)
>>>> the email sending date is part
of "view = Ontolog Forum". I actually made the statement a few minutes
earlier.
>>>> I could have said "at time =
3/17/2009 2:00 AM { I do say to you od {...} done; };"
- who is "I"?
>>>> In a conversation, the meaning
of "I" and "you" changes whenever a different person speaks.
>>>> In this case "I is Dick
McCullough;"
- who is "you"?
>>>> "you is Chris
Menzel;"
>>>> but it would be reasonable for
you to consider that "you is all Ontology Forum member;"
- did you leave your house at 10am, or arrive at
Raley's then? Is that time approximate or exact? In which time zone?
>>>> I left my house at 10 AM, which
is part of the meaning of "walk".
>>>> 10 AM is approximate, in
the sense that I could have said 10:03 AM. The time unit depends on
context.
>>>> time zone is PDT (UTC - 7)
because I live in California
- where and what is your house? do you have only
one?
>>>> that's all part of my
context
- 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?
>>>> that's part of our common human
context. You can specify the distinctions with genus-differentia
definitions.
>>>> walk is perambulation with
...; run is perambulation with ...; limp is perambulation with
...; crawl is perambulation with ...;
>>>> which is part of the context
hierarchy
>>>> begin hierarchy
movement;
>>>> perambulate;
>>>> / walk;
>>>> / run;
>>>> / limp;
>>>> /
crawl;
>>>> end hierarchy
movement;
- 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?
>>>> "Raley's" is the name of a local
store, which is franchised by a large corporation
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".
>>>> I should have used terms like
"Ontolog Forum view" and "Ontolog Forum member".
>>>> "Ontolog Forum view" is the name
of a list of mKR propositions.
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.
>>>> I agree 100%.
>>>> But note that you were able to
understand the "general idea" without knowing those details.
>>>> And I was able to express all
those details using the mKR language.
Godfrey
----- 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