David and All, (01)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, David Eddy <deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Rob Freeman wrote:
>
>> [RF] Fundamentally at fault I believe is the idea that names for
>> things are worth arguing about. Abandon that and even using
>> everyday language you can usually find something to agree on.
>
> Please to explain what you mean by "names for things are worth arguing
> about" (02)
Doug made a distinction between "names" in ontologies and language,
and certainly he's right that I'm talking about names in ontologies.
But actually I meant both. I'm sure the problem (ambiguity) is the
same in both cases. (03)
Maybe we need to back up a bit. We're always using the word "meaning".
How much consensus do we really have? What is our fundamental model of
"meaning"? (04)
To declare myself, I do think sets, loosely defined, are a good model
for most of our intuitions about "meaning". (05)
Pat C says: "I can't imagine why you would want to identify concepts with sets". (06)
What about everyone else? (07)
We are always arguing about what things mean. But we are never going
to agree how to resolves names to "meaning", if we don't agree what
"meaning" is. What consensus do we have on a model for "meaning"
itself, that we can argue constructively about a way of resolving
names/labels to it? (08)
-Rob (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|