On 6/29/2012 12:34 PM, Avril Styrman wrote:
> Then again, properties and particulars are needed in ontologies which
> directly concern the measurable reality. (01)
I agree. My point, though, is that you don't need the words
'property' or 'particular' when you develop or use an ontology. (02)
Those words are useful when you compare the theories of different
philosophers. But when you are developing a formal ontology, you use
some formal logic to express it. To discuss the ontology, you never
need to use any terms other than the words for the syntactic units
of the logic you use. (03)
If you're using FOL, the only words you need are 'function', relation',
'variable', and 'value' (of a variable). If you're using Common Logic,
the values of a variable can include functions and relations. (04)
I disagree with Quine's attempt to eliminate abstract entities, but I
am willing to accept his famous dictum: (05)
To be is to be the value of a quantified variable. (06)
In other words, the entities that exist in your ontology are identical
to the things you can refer to by variables in the logic you used to
express the ontology. (07)
My recommendation is to use the same terms to talk about the things
in your ontology that you would use to refer to whatever your logic
is able to express. (08)
This convention drastically simplifies the verbiage you use to talk
about your ontology, and it clarifies talk about what exists. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|