[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:58:09 -0500
Message-id: <4F75E621.6010405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 3/30/2012 11:15 AM, John Bottoms wrote:
> Could you expound on secondness a bit more? It sounds like you want to
> have dyadic predicates but apply them to ternary relationships. Or, you
> may be referring to attributes rather than entities. I'm not certain.    (01)

A thorough summary of all of Peirce's semiotics is not useful by email.
But to be extremely brief, everything that we perceive, communicate,
experience, or think about is in terms of signs.  Any logic that is
adequate for expressing ontology must be able to represent all possible
relationships among signs, signs of signs, signs of signs of signs...    (02)

> Searle uses "dog" as an example of firstness. Dog has multiple
> attributes; "color", "demeanor", "size".
> He also uses "mother" as an example of secondness. "Louise" as a mother
> that has multiple attributes; "role=mother", "job=employer", "child=Maria".    (03)

The words 'attribute', 'role', and 'entity' are special-case terms
that combine some aspects of logic and some aspects of ontology.    (04)

> We could argue that the 1st and 3rd attributes have a relationship for
> Louise. In this sense, because we are talking about attributes rather
> than elements we could try and distinguish the two discussions of "dog"
> and "Louise" because "dog" refers to a thing, while Louisa's entities
> are attributes.    (05)

That gets into many more issues about logic, ontology, and language.
If you like, I can send you a list of references to articles on my
website that analyze them and represent them in logic.    (06)

But I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  Are you trying
to claim that OWL is useful for anything beyond terminologies?    (07)

Just look at the published OWL ontologies:  everything formal in those
so-called ontologies can be expressed in Aristotle's syllogisms.  All
the rest is swept under the rug (i.e., English comments).  That's
what terminology systems have been doing for over a century.    (08)

John    (09)

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    (010)

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