[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Chairs - was Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "sean barker" <sean.barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:23:32 -0000
Message-id: <C5CA1754F9D14F72AD5435463CDE08E5@SMB>
Doug Foxvog wrote    (01)

"The referent for many terms would have to be defined in NL.  And the 
boundary conditions for terms would be hard to define.  Can we formally
define a cat?  Certainly one could formally define a chair, but each 
ontology to be mapped to would probably have a different definition.  It
might be nice to describe fuzzy boundaries for concepts."    (02)

One might define cat through what cats are in themselves, a particular group 
of living creatures, defined by the genetic boundaries that prevent breeding 
with other creatures.
However there is nothing of itself that makes a chair a chair (think of the 
60's fad for pod shaped chairs hanging from the ceiling).
Basically, chair is an artefact designed and manufactured for a single adult 
human to sit on, clear of the floor. This definition eliminates
  - Rocks
  - Logs
  - Tables (which can be sat on)
  - Benches, pews, settles, sofas
  - Cushions
Howeverthe definition would need a few tweeks to eliminate car seats, 
ejector seats, lavatories, bosun's chairs, etc.    (03)

A chair is not defined by its form, but by the processes that humans apply 
to create and use it (the forms of life in which it is involved). This is 
what I mean when I say that "semantics is defined by behaviour". We have 
common semantics (we have made the same differentations) up to the point 
where we have common forms of life. If when I ask the robot grocer to give 
me "three red apples" it gives me three red apples, then I can be happy it 
understood the request - in saying that the semantics of "three red apples" 
is understood, all I am saying is that it behaved in the correct way. I have 
no need of the concept of "concept" to describe its understanding.    (04)

That is, semantics is about the behaviour of systems - if you want to talk 
about the meaning of signs, I think (please correct me) we are talking 
semiotics. I suspect that much of the argumentation of recent threads 
(primitives, Longman's dictionary, etc) is a proxy arguement between 
semantics and semiotics.    (05)

Sean Barker, Bristol     (06)

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    (07)

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