[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Relations for classes and predicates [Was: Inconsist

To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Rob Freeman <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:18:06 +1300
Message-id: <7616afbc1002121918s1c62cb75v769fbf9953340c01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Doug,    (01)

We will have to see whether anyone else is willing to declare a
personal model of meaning.    (02)

But your model in terms of mappings and relations fits very well with
mine, and makes it easy for me to argue my point about names/labels.    (03)

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:54 PM, doug  foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> I consider the meaning of terms in an ontology to be a mapping to things
> outside the ontology.  These mappings relate not just (or primarily) to
> physical wavicles, but ever changing patterns and groups of them, categories
> of such groups, and relations among such groups    (04)

I find your "mapping to things outside the ontology" very compatible
with my "sets, loosly defined".    (05)

Rigid formalizations of set theory I only find interesting in so far
as I understand they hit a wall, and you can show by this means all
formalizations hit a wall. (Where by formalization I mean attempts to
find rigid, unchanging sets or "Defining exact boundaries for class or
relation membership".)    (06)

So formalizations of set theory don't interest me so much, as formalizations.    (07)

> ... Defining exact boundaries for class or relation membership
> can be almost impossible.    (08)

This is where it gets interesting. I think it is usually impossible,
and has been shown to be so.    (09)

However, one of the advantages of a model in terms of "relations" like
this, is that you don't actually need to define exact boundaries.    (010)

If mappings and relations are a good model, why try to move away from
mappings and relations? Defining exact boundaries is only necessary if
you are trying to formalize the relations.    (011)

Why do we constantly expend so much effort trying to formalize things?
What advantage does it give us?    (012)

The only disadvantage is that we might have to keep track of lists of
mappings and relations. Something which computers fortunately excel
at.    (013)

So I can go along with your mappings and relations. Do you follow why
I want to reject formalizations of those (you already agree they "can
be almost impossible"), and do you see my point that attempts to
formalize (=arguments about names/labels) are not actually necessary?    (014)

-Rob    (015)

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    (016)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>