|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:16:13 +0000 (GMT)|
why do you think that in commonsense knowledge domain definitions of m-w need any comment?
I believe that core ontology concepts are objects, properties and relations. In fact, the intitial state is an object which is a unity of them and it is exploded through a number of mental operations. (Examles wanted?) With the help of these categories I can semantically analyze natural langauges and create an ontology that integrates the currently different domains. In this approach axioms and the concept of events are not of primary interest, because verbs are seen as the representations of relations (hence not limited to Boolean operators). Therefore the issuse of disambiguation as for dictionaries is a futile exercise, as the defintions used are sometimes incomplete and irrelevant in semantic terms, this is why you cannot "merge" them (should try to integrate them instead) as they are not in compatible forms (content) and they are not modular either. You must accept that such a new ontology should be dynamic as many of you already suspect.
I mean - what is a goal of your comments? make m-w definitions more clear? but I think these are clear enough? or what?
My comments are intended to illustrate my points in that respect and show the internal contradictions of the treatise on the subject that I have come accross with so far. I am trying to introduce a different paradigm, you could say.
In math logic domain there is a kind of definition - an abbreviation when they introduce new symbol saying for example:
t≤s denotes t<s or t=s
In my "semantic analysis" this is formalization, a mental operation of the relation between two objects as indicated. The commonsense transcript is that an object (to be specified, otherwise it does not make sense) is smaller than another object after comparison and a few other operations also required to arrive at that result in formalization. In doing this I used the mental operation called interpretation, the reverse of formalization. For any message (statement) to make sense it is neceessary to be complete, which means that if it has (as it should have) a verb in it, then it should have person, number and tense specified among others to make sense. Or in other words "Media is the message" is interpreted as The message is instruction - in my translation.
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity and starting withdefinitions, Alex Shkotin|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity and startingwithdefinitions, Alex Shkotin|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity and starting withdefinitions, FERENC KOVACS|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity and startingwithdefinitions, Alex Shkotin|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|