John wrote:
"The way you use it in mKR falls roughly in the ballpark of various
theories, but I and many other people who subscribe to this forum believe
that your discussions about it are so vague that it doesn't come close to
being considered an even marginally useful "theory". (01)
Mao said: "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of
thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the
sciences ...". (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] semantics of the mKR language (03)
> Duane and Dick,
>
> DN> I think the movie was called '2001: A Space Odyssey'
> > - one of my favorite ever.
>
> I agree that I should have used the full title.
>
> RHM> I remember your recent email re: Dunn, and your
> > "Ways of mapping possible worlds to contexts" in
> > "Knowledge Representation". I have not read any of
> > your papers on Dunn.
>
> See the first few sections of either or both of the
> following papers:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/laws.htm
>
> RHM> I might endorse the "laws and facts" approach.
> > But mKR is a language that combines Context theory
> > and Situation theory. I don't know if you think that
> > Context theory has its own acceptable form of Semantics.
>
> Both words 'context' and 'situation' have a very broad
> range of meanings in ordinary language. The phrase
> 'situation semantics' has been applied to a particular
> theory of NL semantics developed by Jon Barwise and
> John Perry.
>
> There have been more theories of context than there are
> senses of the word 'context'. Everyone agrees that the
> idea (however it might be defined) is central to the use
> of natural languages, but there is no agreement on how
> to formalize the notion in any version of semantics
> (either for natural languages or for versions of logic).
>
> The way you use it in mKR falls roughly in the ballpark of
> various theories, but I and many other people who subscribe
> to this forum believe that your discussions about it are so
> vague that it doesn't come close to being considered an even
> marginally useful "theory".
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|