[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 22:50:49 -0400
Message-id: <4E167089.7040701@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Chris and Doug,    (01)

These are more examples that show why a semiotic view can clarify
the issues.    (02)

>> I have always assumed that these financial products were a process which
>> involved the dealers making the trade, the back office arranging the
>>  settlement, etc. - and this certainly has a spatial dimension.    (03)

> I see financial products as being created by a process, but being distinct
> from the process that created them.    (04)

A contract is a sign that was produced by a process (negotiation) that
may have involved a large number of activities, which may have included
many kinds of signs.    (05)

But the sign type (the information contained in the contract) is the
result of that negotiation.  The sign tokens are instances that the
participants keep for their own records.    (06)

That is Doug's conclusion.  But the advantage of Peirce's semiotics
is that it gives you an ontology of signs that can be formalized in
a way that would enable automated and semi-automated reasoning
about such issues.    (07)

John    (08)

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    (09)

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