|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:43:18 +0000 (GMT)|
Rich and David,
I guess this problem of naming standards is analogous to what happens in translation of NLs.
When you are to translate a word from English to L2, you are sometimes in the same situation as meeting a new object that you cannot name in your vernacular.
As far as I am concerned this can be solved by using the primitives form and content.
So you notice something that you canot identify for some reason. Consequently, you do not have a name for it. Identification at a mimimum level (first time encounter) is done by giving something a name. You may give it the most generic name (such as object - see its meaning from Latin - anything blockng your view). By giving it a name, you create another (verbal sign) object identifying (at varying degree of specifics and generics) not just the physical object, but your experience of the same in your mind whatever form that representation may take.
Now if you do not have a name, and you are unable to identify it, despite you try hard based on your experience of many other objects and properties already learnt, then you can identify its content.
Content is a list of properties that you can name (identify) from your knowledge base. (Note that to me such a list is a product and not a sum, while an object is also a product of form and content, where both have a value of one and they are written as1/1. In other words, you do not have partial relationship, you deal with integers, always with whole objects (forms) subject to chunking. But that is another line.)
So if the object is an object, and is not possible to identify,but seemingly flying, it will be an UFO. (Or it may be a sputnik, if you have not named or known a satelite before.)
I agree, that there is no known method other than mass communication to induce people to use a word for a new thing named by anybody at any time at random or otherwise.
But, by having a data base built and sorted adequately where you can look for content (properties), which is the result of chunking, then you can find your object without a name (form), because before you would give it a name in L2, you want to check the object against an inventory of objects sorted on their content (properties). And you may find that there is just no such a thing in that culture and then you decide to keep the original word in L2 context.
Am I clear about the parallel?
_________________________________________________________________ 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] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping [American Humor], David Eddy|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] 2D drawing primitives (was: Foundation Ontology Primitives), Ali Hashemi|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology primitives, Rich Cooper|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology Primitives, FERENC KOVACS|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|