[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Using controlled natural languages for ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:53:59 -0700
Message-id: <C9A77C87.16764%dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>

Isn’t the third umpire’s statement below sort of anti-existentialist?   Like the tree that falls in the wood, the act itself is (ipso facto) regardless of observations or the fact that a person bears witness.

For the context of baseball statistics I can see how it is a true statement.


On 3/17/11 6:18 AM, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Finally, three umpires in a bar were discussing their methods
for calling balls and strikes:

   First umpire:   I call 'em as I see 'em.

   Second umpire:  I call 'em as they are.

   Third umpire:   They ain't nothin' til I call 'em.

The third umpire is right.  The CWA holds, by convention,
for baseball statistics.

Adobe LiveCycle Enterprise Architecture - http://www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/
TV Show - http://tv.adobe.com/show/duanes-world/
Blog – http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
Music – http://22ndcenturyofficial.com/
Twitter – http://twitter.com/duanechaos/
“That’s all I have time for”

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>