ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 18:07:14 -0000
Message-id: <4b6b0cd7.0a04d00a.7896.ffff845e@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear Chris,

 

Well I agree that anything defined by axioms is affected when those axioms change.  However, at least some primitives just are – membership would be one of them. Are you therefore arguing that in using membership in the axioms that define other things, that that affects the meaning of membership itself (as an example)?

 

I can see that there are clearly subsets of membership that are say set membership and type membership, but I’m not sure that that changes the meaning of membership.

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                           

Information  Junction

Tel: +44 560 302 3685

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

 

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.

 

 

 

From: Chris Partridge [mailto:partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 04 February 2010 14:52
To: 'Matthew West'; mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

 

I copy in John’s comment ( he uses ‘elementOf’ where you use ‘membership’) :

 

The inconsistencies lie in the choice of axioms.  All versions of set theory are based on two dyadic relations:  subsetOf and elementOf.

The differences lie in the axioms that are asserted in each theory.

 

You could call subsetOf and elementOf primitives, but they don't behave the way that you have been claiming for the kinds of primitives you want.  In particular, their "meaning" is determined by the axioms and each version of set theory has a different set of axioms.

 

That is one of the main reasons why I keep saying that this search for primitives is misguided.  It's totally irrelevant what set of words (or predicates or relations or types or concepts or whatever) you start with -- because all the serious work is done by the axioms.

 

As soon as you add more axioms to a theory, the "meaning" of the so-called "primitives" changes.

 

 

From: Matthew West [mailto:dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 04 February 2010 14:10
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

 

Dear Chris,

 

Could you elaborate please.

 

Though, as I think John Sowa pointed out in general (apologies if it was someone else), the ‘root primitive’ membership has different senses / meanings in the two cases – so it is not exactly the same.

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                           

Information  Junction

Tel: +44 560 302 3685

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

 

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.

 

 


_________________________________________________________________
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>