ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program of on

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:01:18 -0400
Message-id: <f19327683493f4f0b8bf17a7e5c35bb8.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, March 26, 2012 17:12, Rich Cooper wrote:
>[doug foxvog] and I wrote:
>
> RC:> One way to view context is as a collection of
> > properties and relations
> > about a situation.  In that view, context is
> > possibly physical, and
> > possibly conceptual, but not necessarily either.    (01)

> DF:>I meant that a context is a conceptual
> construct.  It seems that you are
> referring to the physical definition of the
> context, which i referred to
> in the next sentence.    (02)


>> RC:> For example, if I am recording objects and
>> their properties in a database, then a query    (03)

> DF:>A query is a conceptual object and has a
> conceptual structure.  If the
> query is seen as merely a string of 1s and 0s, it
> can not be used until
> it is interpreted to have some meaning by mapping
> it to some conceptual structure.    (04)

RC:
> The word "context" is widely used in computer
> science to mean all the information required to
> perform some function(s).    (05)

I think you are referring to a "task context" here.    (06)

I am referring to something else, an "ontological
context", which has been discussed a lot on the
ontolog forum.  It refers to the state of affairs in which
some set of statements is true.  It can be modeled as
an ontological object, for example a Cyc #$Microtheory.    (07)

>  For example, [android.content.Context]    (08)

Here, you are referencing a Java Class i have never heard of.
Yes, people often name objects and classes in object-oriented
languages with English words.  However, that does not mean
that in normal conversation, someone using one of those words
means every specific piece of code that someone has happened
to assign that name to.    (09)

> I am curious; why do you feel that a context is
> conceptual any more than some other glob of memory
> which, as you say, has to be interpreted to be
> useful?    (010)

A glob of memory is not a conceptual thing.  A representational
object modeled by that glob of memory is a conceptual thing.
A context -- in the context of this forum 8)# -- is not a glob of
memory.  However, in some languages it can be modeled to a
certain extent by a formatted data structure.  And that structure
can be encoded in a glob of memory (or an unlimited number of
globs of memory).    (011)

Note:
* The memory is physical information bearing object.
* The data structure is a non-physical pattern and can be
   instantiated in an unlimited number of memory objects.
* The represented thing (the context) is in this case non-physical.
  It can be represented by a large number of data structures in a
  large number of representational systems.    (012)

The information bearing object, the data structure, and the
represented thing are all different things -- and different types
of things.    (013)

In CycL, the memory is an instance of #$InformationBearingObject
(which is a subclass of #$InformationBearingThing which covers
events, such #$SingingAnAria as well as objects).  The data
structure is an instance of #$AbstractInformationStructure, and the
Context is an instance of neither.    (014)

-- doug    (015)

> -Rich
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of doug foxvog
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:10 AM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics
> and the research program of ontologies
>
>
>
> On Sun, March 25, 2012 13:52, Rich Cooper wrote:
>
>> doug foxvog wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Or course, what can be physically measured
> depends upon context.  In
>
>>> various contexts, things beyond a certain
> (temporal or linear) scale would
>
>>> be out of context and not part of that
> context's physical reality.  And,
>
>>> of course, context is a conceptual, not
> physical concept -- although it
>
>>> may be given a physical definition.
>
>
>
>> One way to view context is as a collection of
> properties and relations
>
>> about a situation.  In that view, context is
> possibly physical, and
>
>> possibly conceptual, but not necessarily either.
>
>
>
> I meant that a context is a conceptual construct.
> It seems that you are
>
> referring to the physical definition of the
> context, which i referred to
>
> in the next sentence.
>
>
>
>> For example, if I am recording objects and their
> properties in a database,
>
>> then a query
>
>
>
> A query is a conceptual object and has a
> conceptual structure.  If the
>
> query is seen as merely a string of 1s and 0s, it
> can not be used until
>
> it is interpreted to have some meaning by mapping
> it to some conceptual
>
> structure.
>
>
>
>> which returns a situation description may have
> either
>
>> conceptual structure (if they are MY concepts
> that were recorded) or
>
>> physical structure (if the returned values are
> solely physical SENSOR
>
>> measurements).
>
>
>
> Sure.  The conceptual context may include in its
> physical definition a
>
> conceptually selected time frame and a
> conceptually selected set of
>
> sensors and their readings.  The individual
> readings may be more than
>
> merely binary values, but given a conceptual
> meaning, for example,
>
> temperature in degrees Kelvin, pressure in
> Pascals, time in milliseconds
>
> offset from T0, etc.
>
>
>
>> In actual practice, a context can mix both
> physical and subjective
>
>> ('conceptual' if you prefer) estimates of
> reality, and usually does in
>
>> most practical database applications.
>
>
>
> I do not use 'conceptual' to mean 'subjective'.
>
>
>
> I think that this is really the key to the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> I define 'conceptual' as something that is a
> construct of one or more minds.
>
>
>
>> So, IMHO, situations are every bit as slippery
> and subjective as concepts.
>
>>  Situations are just more articulated since they
> usually comprise both
>
>> concepts and sensor readings.
>
>
>
> First, i was not considering contexts to be
> situations.  They are quite
>
> different things.
>
>
>
> Having said that, i agree that situations are
> slippery concepts.  Their
>
> boundaries are subjective.  The temporal and
> spatial limits of a storm
>
> are defined arbitrarily.  What situations and
> events count as subevents
>
> or sub-situations of a war?  How are breaks in
> thought considered when
>
> examining the situation of my responding to this
> email?
>
>
>
> -- doug
>
>
>
>
>
>> -Rich
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Sincerely,
>
>>
>
>> Rich Cooper
>
>>
>
>> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
>>
>
>> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
>>
>
>> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
>> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>    (016)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (017)

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