[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology modules and namespaces

To: ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:10:29 -0500
Message-id: <28816FAA-178C-44C1-B8C8-226E3CCA6B6D@xxxxxxxx>
On Oct 27, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Ian Bailey wrote:
> Hi John,
> I don't really want to start a discussion chain on this. I think CL  
> is very
> difficult to use, and it doesn't do anything I can't already do with  
> a well
> thought-out diagram notation.    (01)

You've just demonstrated that you have no idea what CL is.  If your  
well though-out diagram notation does indeed have the expressive power  
of first-order logic (does it? do you know? where has it been proved?)  
then it can be shown to be a Common Logic dialect.  Given the disdain  
for logic expressed in your previous post, however, my suspicion is  
that a well thought-out diagram notation, for you, needs no rigorous  
semantic foundation -- in which your claim that CL can't do anything  
your diagram notation can't do is meaningless, as you have no clearly  
definable notion of what your notation can and can't do.    (02)

> PS - IDEAS is higher order, and extensional.    (03)

So it has a semantics.  Where can that be found?  Is it higher-order  
in the standard sense or in the sense of Henkin's general semantics?   
Or do you just mean that you can quantify over relations?  Or do the  
words "higher order" here have any clear meaning at all?    (04)

> It's founding categories are
> individual (something with spatio-temporal extent), type and tuple.  
> I can
> see how CL handles type and tuple (albeit through some arcane notion,
> probably starting with "for all..."),    (05)

You find quantification arcane?    (06)

> but it doesn't seem to have a
> fundamental category of something with spatio-temporal extent.    (07)

Again illustrating that you have no idea what CL is.    (08)

> As that's the criterion on which the entire ontology is founded, I  
> think I'd rather use a notation that is also founded on this  
> principle.  Maybe we just built the right wheel for what we're  
> doing, instead of re-inventing one.    (09)

Though of course one first has to make sure one knows what a wheel is.    (010)

Chris Menzel    (011)

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    (012)

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