Christopher Spottiswoode: (01)
John Sowa has addressed these issues in number of emails.
His latest email (3/17/2009 12:27 PM) suggests
an alternative method of formal definition -- translation
to an existing language, such as IKL or CL, which has
already been formally defined. (02)
Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/ (03)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Spottiswoode" <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Christopher
Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:50 AM
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Requirements of computer language semantics (04)
> Chris,
>
> On March 17 you had written (where I have anonymized your
> reference to a language):
>
>> [If] you want [your language] to be of general use as an
>> ontology language that helps us to leverage high-speed computer
>> networks to share, integrate, and reason upon large bodies of
>> information, then [your language] needs a formal semantics that
>> (i) fixes the meanings of its primitive constructs and (ii)
>> assigns definite meanings to complex expressions recursively in
>> terms of the meanings of their simpler parts. Without this it
>> is impossible to guarantee that information has been exchanged
>> and integrated accurately and that inferences drawn on the basis
>> of that information are sound.
>
> That seems to me a nicely succinct, self-contained yet
> appropriately contextualized statement of requirements - and thank
> you for it!
>
> But I would like to quote you on it (in my long-promised "5th
> instalment" of my "MACK basics" series from last year, which is
> about to resume, along with some key supporting material (so that
> you know what you might be letting yourself in for!)).
>
> So would you perhaps like to qualify it, or expand on it (though
> not too much!)? Or refer me rather to some other such statement
> by yourself, or by someone else?
>
> Then a further question (hopefully not a sting in the tail):
> Would it undermine your whole intent if you dropped the word
> "ontology" from the opening conditional clause?
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|