[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:10:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <697818.77190.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

In my opinion,  logic is used as knowledge base or reasoning to model Ontology.  But actual information that is necessary to model is available in real world. Because one is modeling the real world !  It is easier to use common sense to model simple things rather than use theoretical proof. 
 ( Why do I need to know Model logic to say   Room furniture = Set ( table, chair, sofa, bookself )?   Or Table can be described as a rectangular top with four legs? )

However, in complex world, it helps to use theoretical logic to develop  SET,  SUBSET ( Static and Dynamic)  Types, attributes and existence ( must or optional)  and relationship between abstract objects. One can use theoretical  Logic for Verification of existing Ontology for correctness as well..

Anything theoretical, you will have to talk to John Sowa..  he is the expert in that matter..



--- On Fri, 2/5/10, Schiffel, Jeffrey A <jeffrey.a.schiffel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Schiffel, Jeffrey A <jeffrey.a.schiffel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 3:15 PM

Pavithra wrote:
>  Dr. Sowa,
>  -   An Elephant is an animal
>  -  Clyde is an elephant
>  -  Therefore Clyde is an animal
> > John F. Sowa  wrote:
> >
> > I have read the following slides, which make some interesting points
> > and cite some useful references:
> >
> >
> >
> > First of all, I have a very high regard for the work by Anna Wierzbicka
> > which I have been following for nearly 30 years.  (I cited her early
> > _Lingua Mentalis_ in my 1984 book.)  I also agree with Cliff Goddard
> > that the arguments against that kind of research are *bad*.
> >
> > But I must emphasize that the so-called "primitives" that Anna W. and
> > others have proposed are most definitely *not* primitives in the sense
> > that mathematicians use.  
(remainder snipped) 
The point in Pavithra's comment does not have to do with logic deduction. It is  more
pragmatic , about an issue of conflating  three meanings of the word "is."
First, from Pavithra :
     -  An Elephant is an animal
     -  Clyde is an elephant
     -  Therefore Clyde is an animal
But now consider (from an different J. Sowa source) :
     -  An Elephant is a species
     -  Clyde is an elephant
     -  Therefore Clyde is a species
Both are valid, but only  the first is true.
The difference is the verb use. In the first set, "Elephant is an animal" is a "kind-of" relation.
In the second set, "Elephant is a species" is an "is-a" hyponym relation. This semantic relation
underlies taxonomies.
In both sets, a third relation is present: "Clyde is an elephant" is an instance relation from Clyde to
types animal and species. 
Mixing the three relations together cannot be transitive  just because they share the same verb. 
 For example, the instance Elephant and the types animal and species do not result in a construct like:
    - Clyde is an elephant is a species, so Clyde is a species
-- Jeffrey Schiffel

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

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>