|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:45:29 +0000 (GMT)|
Form: The pattern of symbols used to make a statement. Content: The subject matter and the propositions stated about that subject.
This is about form in the context of verbal symbols. We need to add: Form is the pattern of symbols considered to be a complete whole. We are assumed to do semantic analysis. No incomplete form makes sense, is specific enough.
Content analyzed in a statement in the above (semantic analysis) context is seaparating content words from grammar words. Content words make up a proposition - subject matter cannot be outside that statment, it must be one of the content words.
John wrote: (to FK> In this context form and content are interchangeable...)
No. I can replace the grammar of a logic and get a notation that looks
totally different -- say predicate calculus or conceptual graphs --
and make exactly equivalent statements. But if you replace the content,
you're talking about something totally different.
What is the grammar of logic?
You consider those two representations to be leading the same conclusion, but they do not have the same content. Or is content onclusion?
Can you replace the content of a form? How?
As soon as you expose any of those as an example, then that name (not the concept) will be the form with the relavant properties as content. In this context form and content are interchangeable, by defining those properties you must be able to dentify the form, and by specifying the form, you must be able to retrieve the proeprties associated with the relation used.
I repeat (in context) the verbal pattern (noun, name, cluster of words) is the form called a concept ( a man made object) associated in your mind with content. Since that is not public, we must find means to share that content. One way of doing it is listing the properties of that object (concept) that make up the concept content) in our minds and then check out if they match or differ.
Rich wrote about foreground and backround interpretation of patterns.
That was perfectly alright as you know from abibuous images. But those figures are all a single patern with dichomotous interpretation - so Rich is right in that case. But a patern of verbal symbols is a different issue - you apply chunking to delimite the borders and the symbols indicating one pattern may not be contiguous, as you all know.
_________________________________________________________________ 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] form and content, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] The financial system is an excellent example., FERENC KOVACS|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Form and content, sean barker|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] form and content, FERENC KOVACS|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|