I came across this very interesting quote:
ML> Semiotic Analysis, as practiced here, involves
the discovery and capture of generalizations about the way Events influence
each other. It is called "semiotic" because I believe that
·
signs are Events, not Objects,
although they may be associated with "substance" Objects which
participate in their occurrence;
·
signs can stand for something
because one part of their occurrence (the sign's "form") influences
another part (the sign's "meaning");
·
any pattern of influence
can be formulated in terms of signs; and
·
the long-established conceptual
apparatus of semiotics, once re-analyzed under this proposed ontology, is
useful for the understanding of any complex system (and its Descriptions)
Semiotic Analysis may proceed using the Event Classes
already discovered, but it may also lead to the discovery of additional Classes
based on the patterns of influence discovered.
RC> This quote came from a page at http://www.polymathix.com/papers/socs-upper.html
where Mark P. Line has posted an ontology comprised of just objects and events
at the top level.
I’m not familiar with using signs postulated as
events, that leaves open new areas. Has anyone else gotten involved in this
way of applying ontologies?
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com