Re: [ontolog-forum] Peirce & tabula rasa & proposition names

["Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----

From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: [ontolog-forum] Last call: OWL 2 and rdf:text primitive datatype

> Suggestion:  It's fine to use your favorite philosophy as a guide
> toward making design decisions, but the formal definitions should
> be as independent as possible of the philosophy that inspired you.
> You can talk about that philosophy in the informal commentary,
> but I recommend that you keep it out of the formalism.
>
> John
>
In my recent email entitled "Peirce & tabula rasa & proposition names",

I related my tabula rasa terminology to Peirce's categories.

I have made my mKR language dependent on Peirce's [and Rand's]

categories. 

 

I did that because "a different syntax for different categories" philosophy

makes it easier to express knowledge in mKR.

For anyone who  prefers the "one syntax for all categories" philosophy

of RDF, by all means use RDF (or a sublanguage of mKR).

 

Not wanting to drop context, my "2. group 3" propositions include the

philosophy that propositions are created by humans.

 

Dick McCullough

http://mkrmke.org

 

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)