Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture - Example ofBed vs

[FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

In fact, this below is a quote from Rich,

FK> - an appropriate semantic theory for a language will provide
 > notions of *logical truth* and *entailment* that can be used
 > to justify the axioms and inference rules that constitute an
 > actual reasoning system.

P.S.

But this time again, without getting any questions I feel that we are repeating ourselves with no sign of understanding. This makes me a bit dissapointed and cheeky.

Like i find that most of the syllogisms are not "fair", because M (object, noun phrase) in a major premise becomes M (property, an adjective) in minor premise, if not explicitely, then implicitly. If it is not so, there still is a trivial relation between M  and S and the inheritence of a property is obvious, nothing to write home about.

Ferenc

Major premise:		M–P		P–M		M–P		P–M
Minor premise:		S–M

Major premise:		M–P		P–M		M–P		P–M
Minor premise:		S–M

Major premise:		M–P		P–M		M–P		P–M
Minor premise:		S–M

Major premise:		M–P		P–M		M–P		P–M
Minor premise:		S–M

_________________________________________________________________
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)