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 AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com