|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:22:20 +0000 (GMT)|
Objects, properties and realtions may do well as conceptual primitives. Events on the other hand arte not a good choice since they have vague boundaries subject to chunking.
Chunking of reality is an imporatnt issue as most of the differences in senses are explained by chunking.
Both objects and properties are easy to paraphrase from parts of speech. relations are not, because they are verbs (in my view, anyway) by "abstracting" a verb you turn it a vague category that does not make sense, hence no good to be included in the basic set of sematic primiotives. To make a verb complete you need to supply gramar person and time.
To make sense of time, you need to defgine space time which cannot be done without defining speed and motion and a reference (starting) point. Ín other words you have recursive definitions of semantic primiotives, which should be alright as the origin of thinking and languages supports this view.
I do not see why generic terms would be easy to speak about. What is easy though to change or shift focus and make the subject to be floating and undecided all the time. Most of the dialogueas are surfing on the surface and are nothing but an exchange of slams. This is why first need a method of synchronizing human thoughts through defintions of a fomrla kind, not identical with that of a dictionary. As far as concepts are concerned taking them as objects that are a unity of form and content can help, especially in you accept that they are at the same time quality and quantity. the usual breakdown into intension and extension is a breakdown of properties that can be made explicit, while the list of objects that feature those properties in your experience (this verified) may also be drawn. Both of those lists are open ended and extendable through dialogues. Moreover, you should also be able to see how to go one step further and se one particular property as an object and derive the properties of tha object by the next opeation called abstarction or isolation, depending how you loook at it.
A set of semanrtic primitives can be produced by using BNF as suggested by someelse here, but without including the operations (verbs) that classicifation will remain lopsided. I admit, that you do not badly need such a system as you can make a living from what you have already got. I also admit that it may look mind bugging to follow the steps of trabnsfroming objects into properties, then relations then objects again, but without showing that this is what is happening in a dialogue using natural languages you will never get to an agremeen founded on some correct logic.
_________________________________________________________________ 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:||[ontolog-forum] blogic iswc keynote, Rick Murphy|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Language and logic, Christopher Spottiswoode|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Language and logic, FERENC KOVACS|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Language and logic, FERENC KOVACS|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|