|From:||"Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:44:55 -0700|
I tried to answer all your questions below.
If I missed something, let me know.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jawit Kien" <jawit.kien@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] syntax & semantics
> On 4/28/09, Richard H. McCullough <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> Here is a very simple example to illustrate what I mean.
>> My reference for "formal semantics" is the IKL specification document.
>> Consider the English sentence, "Fido is a dog."
>> [The mKR translation is "Fido isu dog;" ]
>> The "real symantics" of English [and mKR] tell us that
>> a "dog" is a domesticated carnivious mammal, Canis familiaris
>> "Fido" is the dog identified by Napa, CA animal control license # 1234.
> are you coining a term "symantics" to clarify that what you mean by semantics
> may not match other people's expectations?
#### That's a typo. I meant to say "semantics".
>> The IKL translation of this sentence is
>> (and (isu_rel Fido dog) (dog Fido) (individual Fido) (property dog))
>> The "possible semantics" of IKL tell us that
>> "dog" is a member of the set of all possible property names.
>> "Fido" is a member of the set of all possible individual names.
>> "Fido" is an individual which has the property "dog".
> I don't want to be argumentative, but I do want to understand.
> I may not always agree with you, but I value your writing enough to read it,
> and think about what you are saying.
> I searched the IKL Guid to understand your IKL translation, at:
> but you use terms that aren't in the guide, so the definition
> of those forms, obviously must be elsewhere.
> Could you provide some help in understanding your IKL translation?
> (and (isu_rel Fido dog) (dog Fido) (individual Fido) (property dog))
> I expect that your statement is a logical formula which is true.
> I assume that "and" is the standard logical connective yielding true when
> all the forms within it are true and false otherwise.
#### Yes, see page 4 of IKL Guide.
> I will assume that all the forms inside the "and" are also formulas.
> The first formula is "(isu_rel Fido dog)"
> I think you said earlier that "isu_rel" is a way of linking an
> instance to a class.
#### isu_rel is the name of the binary predicate which corresponds to
#### the mKR verb isu. mKR has three verbs related to a genus concept.
#### isu means "is an individual unit of" -- instance
#### iss means "is a species of" -- species
#### isa means "is an individual unit or a species of" -- instance or species
> I assume that "isa" or "instance" has the same meaning. The link that you
> are stating exists I assume will mean that if there are statements that are
> true for every instance of the class, then they will be known to be true of
> the instance marked in this explicit linking formula.
> So specifically, anything known to be true of all instances of the
> class "dog" is also true about "Fido" as an instance of dog.
> the class "dog" has at least one extension, and Fido is a way of referring
> to that extension uniquely. (is uniqueness guaranteed?)
> you have given us two intensional definitions for "Fido" and for "dog".
> looking forward, the next formula is "(dog Fido)"
> I'm not sure what the point of this formula is, since "(isu_rel Fido dog)"
> already says that Fido is an extension of dog. I would have guessed that
> it meant that there is a group/set/class/type named "dog" and "Fido" meets
> the criterion to be considered to be an element/member/instance/_expression_
> for "dog". But this is exactly what I mean by saying "Fido" is in the extension
> of "dog". So you will have to clarify, as I am confused. Looking ahead, you
> say that "Fido" is an individual which has the property "dog", so you have some
> idea of a an individual having a property that I don't know yet.
> Do only individuals have a property ? How is a property different
> than a monadic
> predicate? and of course, how is that different from the extension idea?
#### I didn't use the right words for IKL.
#### Instead of "property", I should have said "monadic predicate".
> The third formula is "(individual Fido)", you have said that this means
> "Fido" is a member of the set of all possible individual names. I'm
> guessing the
> relevant part of that statement must be "individual" rather than "name" since
> I would have said each word in the entire formula was a name, but you didn't
> so either you are assuming that each word is a name, and not mentioning it,
> or you mean something special by saying "individual".
#### Yes, each word is a name.
#### Looking back at IKL specs again, predicate names and individual names
#### are in the same pool of names.
> The fourth and last formula is "(property dog)" which you said meant that
> "dog" is a member of the set of all possible property names. Again, why you
#### One more place where I thought I would make it easier to understand
#### by using "property", and I failed. My actual translation is
#### "(concept dog)". I don't want to say "(isu_rel dog concept)" and
#### "(isu_rel Fido individual)" because I consider those statements to belong
#### to a different context. If I want to include that info. in the same context
#### I use sets: "(ismem_rel dog concept_set)" and
#### "(ismem_rel Fido individual_set)".
> said this instead of saying (isu_rel dog property), I don't know. are properties
> and predicates the same thing in your mind? I don't see them as the same.
#### As noted above, I should have said "predicate" instead of "property".
> By my thought, a predicate is part of a formula, expressing a linking
> John Sowa talks about relationships and concepts, and I think of predicates
> as being relationships used in a logical formula.
> Does my intution about all of this make sense to some of the grey beards here?
> Anyway, I note that your original statement is what the Cyc folks call a GAF,
> i.e. a Ground Atomic Formula. There are no variables in it, it is not
> an existential
> formula, ("ThereExists") nor a universal formula ("ForAll"), so it
> just states one
> fact about the universe, presumably for all time, and always true.
> Do you state somewhere else in your computer system that the unique names
> assumption must be known to be true? I can imagine a cat named Fido, and
#### I am assuming unique names.
> If you had your statement in a knowledge base/logical theory then I couldn't
> talk about my cat named Fido in your system, because I assume in your
> system that you have dog and cat as disjoint collections. I know the
> Cyc folks use
> microtheories to allow both of Fido-the-cat and Fido-the-dog to exist at the
> same time. Maybe that is what you were trying to do with your context ideas.
> Also how do you handle the fact that Bob's-dog-named-Fido and
> may or may not be the same dog? I can imagine that if Bob and Bill
> were brothers,
> they would both consider the dog-named-Fido as their own, hence having two names
> for the same dog. But it is just as possible that there are two dogs.
> How do you handle
#### two names for the same dog: "name1 is name2;"
#### in IKL, it's "(= name1 name2)"
> 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
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Last Call: OWL 2 and rdf:text primitive datatype, Azamat|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] mKR/mKE 8.2 simplified grammar, Richard H. McCullough|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] syntax & semantics, Jawit Kien|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] FW: Digital Ontology and digital ontology, Sean Barker|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|