Yes, but it doesn't combine both properties and
METHODs; "Put" for example can take different
TYPEs of operands, and therefore needs to have a
method for each such type signature. (01)
Put things right.
Put the cake on the plate.
Put off the schedule.
Put it away. (02)
Each takes a different signature for
implementation of the "Put" concept, and
linguistics (i.e. common English) can handle it,
but it requires more than properties to implement
each signature. (03)
A "PutAllSignatures" concept should be able to
interpret all the versions of the English "put",
all signatures of same, and all semantic meanings
as derived from a corpus of "put" sentences. (04)
That is what I need to find, and FCA doesn't cover
such odd usages. (05)
Conceivably, each signature could be generalized
from the class of all "put" sentences in the
corpus, and each said signature could be
interpreted by such a method, each said method to
be written individually by manual methods. But
switching to another corpus, with the same
signatures but different bindings, would still be
interpretable by the same PutAllSignatures class,
which is what FCA can generate from the corpus
signatures given the bindings as FOL statements. (06)
Another way to view the question is: how are the
FOL expressions for each signature, all using a
common set of signature class names for operands,
to be processed so that the bindings of each
corpus can be automatically switched among the
more specialized "put"s derived from
PutAllSignatures and the specific bindings they
encounter in the varying corpus. (07)
I hope that is a little clearer; the problem is an
FOL problem at its root, but the specific
expressions in each signature are not known
specifically, only generalizations thereof. (08)
HTH,
-Rich (09)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (010)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:48 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal and
categories in BFO & DOLCE (011)
On 9/7/2011 4:02 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> But all such tools result in a HIERARCHY, not a
LATTICE. I want a
> method that works as a LATTICE of types as in
ontology. (012)
The FCA tools generate lattices, they're fast, and
they are
highly automated. (013)
John (014)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|