[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Fw: Foundation Ontology Primitives

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:11:55 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <870952.23266.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
You wrote On Feb 6, 2010, at 5:16 PM, FERENC KOVACS wrote: Thank you very much. All is clear now.
    Perhaps for you... but I have no idea what is meant by a "primitive" nor a "unique identifier."
I have been looking for semantic primitives that can be used to identify objects existing - in knowledge representations, but not limited in any specific software and information systems. More precisely, something in the lines of a Library Classifciation system or taxonomies, etc. My understanding of semantic analysis of NLs starts with breaking down words (and clusters) that are to be taken as a whole, becasuse that is how they make sense (have a referent). These are normally noun phrases from very generic to specific (note: not from abstract to concrete, but from generic to specific to a human with varying degree of (relative) knowledge of the objects in question - that makes a phrase specific or generic for humans. But something being generic or specific also means plurality and individuality with an unspecified object encountered for the first time as content (existence as no1 property), then by giving it a name (a form) that should enable us to see/think/search for the very same thing later identical with itself. Therefore it should have a unique identifier. Such a unique identifier may be verbal or numeric, or a combination of both to make it realy unique.Therefore the final identifiers will be space and time parameters of an object with the general property of existence.
When I look at them as form and content, quality and quantity signifying always a whole, because verbally what makes senses is a complete cluster, either a nominal phrase to refer to a chunk of reality, or a verbal phrase (with the difference here that a verbal form is not complete without grammar person and time indicators), it is clear that the ultimate (verbal form) is a (real) number since it signifies a specific chunk of reality perceived as a whole (1/1) made up from quality and quantiy as well as from and content. These numbers are assigned in the process of identification (enumeration), which at the ame time is moving from present to past. as you tally th eobjects that have ben counted in order to give an acount of them verbally or numerically, which is the main purpose of communication, where the mainntenance of identiy is crucial. And whenever you change context (dimension, *number systems*, you will start from one again. There are objects that are so generic that you cannot count them (such as universe, life, existence) and so specific that you cannot name them expressis verbis and you rely on context or imagery to make them *one*, i.e. identified uniquely, in fact, by time and space parameters again. When we have learn to count we have created a template of *locations* in our mind to fit our new experience to exisiting ones, but we cannot sort large number of items in the mind other but as numbers with size as the ultimate difference (property) between objects in reality and existence as the only property shared by them all.
Have I explained myself satsifactorily?

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>
  • [ontolog-forum] Fw: Foundation Ontology Primitives, FERENC KOVACS <=