|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:36:08 +0000 (GMT)|
apologies to Peter. Perhaps we could switch to private correspondence not to
annoy the rest of us.) as now I have your email adddress
As I expected we have difficulties arising from using a different paradigm to se the world. Again, I remove anything but what to respond as an outstanding issue. Thanks a lot for trying to make sense of what I write
Yes, it is. But I also claim that the referents of these concept exist, as objects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28philosophy%29 wich originally meant in Latin something blocking your vision to see the whole picture, an issue if you beileive I reality or not. This object is then processed by the senses and by mental operations to derive the rest of the CHAIN of associations in an effort to understand the world and discover RELATIONS.
Yes, you are right again. But In my view there is no separate ontology fo NLP and atronomy and biology for instance – as regards its top level and the mental operations that are in place to produce them. We allé have the saem faculties, but different knowledge due to different experience in life.
But you have introduced dabases in your passages whereas I am trying to start discussing a subject by defining my terminology step by step so that we can verify each definition or sense.
Looking at the world what you get is the result of chunking. The biggest chunk (with a boundary of varying size) is the universe (quantity one) and its properties existence (quantiy one). We can separate ourselves from the environment, so a small chunk is a man, and a man is further divided as a unity of body and soul (in a hazy relation mind and spirit) Thus it is a man (object no 2, therefore subject, becasuie it is smaller than the other, it is subdued) mentally processing (relating, IS in a relation to – this is a verb no matter which version you like) the universe (an object no 1) as a result of which object no 2 infers that both objects (no1 and no 2) exist i.e. they have the property of existence. This reality check is always necessary.
Well, that is the problem with your(not personally yours!) current ontologies.
Verbs often are used to represent either static
situations or events (which can be considered to be active situations).
Situations, thus, would be parts of the universe to be
situation nor event are suitable for identification of the parts of the world,
in other words chunking a universe. I would get rid of them once for all.
do you think it is only relation that is a mental construct, and property,
assertion and multiple objects are not?
quite. I have not been using type, token, etc. nor subtype.
is a semantic primitive (yet a product) and an object is seen as a unity of
form and content (two facets if you like) – properties showing in two different
relations (mental operations, verbs) yielding two different qualities (namely
form and content)
see above. How did statements get in there?
Why do you think that these two are different pots of jam?How do you share your knowledge of the world with me?
It is just the other way round. It is an NL statement you have to analyse semantically and describe in a similar fashion to BNF in a process of recursion. Obviously the same semantic content may be represenetd not just by different words, but different word clusters and /or statements
That seems to me like understanding Finnish
Then I am not clear enough. The objects in the world (in spacetime) are given names in various languages and countries. It is the chunking that matters to maintain the identity of the sbject matter that are spoken of in different lingos. We tend to forget that thinking is not limited to high-tech societies, animaly and even babies can think. For some reason we assume that thinking is done in terms of concepts which by necessities have to be named and sometimes formalized.
I would suggest trying to view the ontology
as another language & having
The semantic language you are talking about is only good for computers Most of us cannot make sense of it as we have different processors in the mind.Why do not you want to know how your own processor is contructed – by looking at its set of instructions?
Yes, I am
talking about the creation process, in which we produce
talking about the creation process without thinking about a computer. In this
simple model a creator (object) creates (relation) a creation (property). But
creation as property is possible to see as an object, just as creation as a
verb is possible to see as an object too. Before you find that mind buggling I
need to remind you that our mind does something we (Hungarians) describe
intuitively as rotation of objects in space. Obviously if you de that exercise
you find nothing surprising in looking at thingies from dfferent angles.
As it is in here: Object=::object/relation/property
Any verb you mean.
other things subject to your perception and state of mind. You may also believe
(as the first time movie goer) that there are people on the screen whose heads are cut off and you run out from
Well, hiow do you want to have a proper SUMO and a normalized semantic enterprise architecture if you keep your knowledge of the world and that of NLs apart?
Unless you have an algorithm with an end state - as you would in reality. If you like metaphores and if you are familiar with the Bible, you would agree that in the process of genesis the end of process was that God saw that it was good. Go to start of cycle.
You tell me what else verbs represent, please.
satement needs to be interpreted semantically. This is how you arrive at
messages that make sense and messages that do not. Of course you have a sender and a recipient
whether explicit or implicit.
are, because the huerarchical structure they are arranged in IS a spatial
representation. Most of these terms show contained in, or Boolean relations
that are abo ovo derived/abtracted from the observation of objects in space
you agree that meaning cannot be defined without context and they are inversely
is this defintion precise enough to tell me how to find it semantic terms?(object,
property and relations for instance?) Can you identify it in terms of spacetime as
you can do in case of non moving objects? Can you be specific enough to turnyour
definition t into a piece of data to act on?
may call that that way. But in my interpretation “event and partial” are not very useful.
I am sorry, I did not mean you, but the people in the forum wjho believe that semantic anaysis is about using formal logic.
Yes, but “by the way” ontologies have similar problems as far as I can tell from the posts here. The name SUMJO suggest that you are after merging items that are not compatiblenot just because of the difference in domain, but the in the logic used to produce them. Logis in the sense of mentsl operations used that the experts are not aware of, especially with respect to emergence or origin of terms as no algorithm or temporal sequence is represented.
Good for them.
A slight misunderstanding here. A grammar person (subject) equals an object, a person per se that may not be a good way to put it.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 startingwithdefinitions, doug foxvog|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] PROF Swartz ON DEFINITIONS, Alex Shkotin|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity and startingwithdefinitions, doug foxvog|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] language vs logic - ambiguity andstartingwithdefinitions, FERENC KOVACS|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|