ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology-based database integration

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Rick Murphy <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:05:08 -0400
Message-id: <4ADE5E44.7080407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John:    (01)

Many thanks for your comments. See below.    (02)

John F. Sowa wrote:
> Rick and Chris,
> 
> I'll begin by saying that I agree with the points that Chris M. made
> about model theory,    (03)

Agreed !    (04)

> but I'd also like to make a few more points that
> are related to the broader issue of what aspects of "meaning" are
> missing in model-theoretic semantics.  (I put the word 'meaning' in
> double quotes to indicate that I'm using it in the very informal
> sense of anything that anyone might consider relevant.)
> 
<snip>
> 
> I agree that much more is needed, but I don't believe that it
> belongs in a course on MTS.  A course on ontology might be a
> better home, but most such courses have now degenerated into
> OWL-hacking (which generates examples such as the one above).    (05)

Ouch, sorry to hear that's become so prevalent.    (06)

> RM> If the patterns or idioms from applied semantics do exist can a theory
>> of meaning be established based on them? Where in this case meaning is
>> both denotation and interpretation, whether intended or unintended.
> 
> I wouldn't derive a theory of meaning from the applications,
> but I would certainly want anybody who derives a theory from
> more general considerations to test it on as many applications
> as possible before presenting it as a standard for the world.
> 
> RM>>> ... and complex enough signatures to include
>  >>> symbols that are interpretants, signs and objects.
> 
> CM>> You lost me.
> 
> RM> Here's a diagram with labeled nodes and edges.
>  >
>  > http://www.rickmurphy.org/images/interpretant-triangle.png
> 
> That is an example based on Peirce's semiotics, which I strongly
> recommend.  But CSP wrote many volumes of published and unpublished
> manuscripts, in which he covered an enormous range of topics.    (07)

Yes, the primary source from which I developed the diagram is the 
following quote:    (08)

I define a sign as something, A, which brings something, B, its 
interpretant, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, 
its object, as that in which itself stands to C. In this definition I 
make no more reference to anything like the human mind than I do when I 
define a line as the place within which a particle lies during a lapse 
of time.    (09)

I intend to represent with the inner, counter cock-wise path the naming 
of an existent. With the outer, clock-wise path I intend to represent 
what Peirce calls the "reduction of the manifold to unity."    (010)

I supplied the names of the edges based mainly on New List of 
Categories. I especially enjoyed the similarity between the title of 
Soames' paper which I previously referenced called "The Unity of the 
Proposition" and the following line from #4 in New List of Categories:    (011)

"The unity to which the understanding reduces impressions is the unity 
of a proposition."    (012)

Anyway, my plan is to spend some time over the next few months with 
Haskell and Isabelle/HOL representing some patterns and idioms that 
would make use of the triangle's edges.    (013)

And of course this could be developed much further based on the material 
in "Sundry Logical Conceptions" and "Nomenclature and Divisions of 
Triadic Relations."    (014)

<snip>    (015)

> 
> This competition could have multiple stages, as Ada had.
> But users and vendors could participate in every stage in
> any way they chose.  And the committee could use feedback
> from all the users, implementers, and vendors before
> making any final determination of an official standard.    (016)

I enjoyed reading the information about standards and competitions. As 
above, I am especially interested in using the triangle to develop an 
approach to specifying meaning through patterns and idioms that emerge 
in a situation.    (017)

The standards processes defined by various standards bodies would seem 
to provide well known situations and interactions among agents that 
implement these standards could compete or cooperate as players in a game.    (018)

> 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
>  
> 
>     (019)

-- 
Rick    (020)

cell: 703-201-9129
web:  http://www.rickmurphy.org
blog: http://phaneron.rickmurphy.org    (021)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (022)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>