ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" William Frank Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:28:58 -0400
 thanks for this, John and Mathew, Avril, Doug,  and the other partakers in this discussionI learn alot from participating in this forum, and especially every now and again when I see things I vaguely know come looming out of the fog organized in a lovely fashion.   I am even sure this helps me in my business, so a recreation in the root sense. WmOn Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John F Sowa wrote: Dear Matthew, Avril, William, and Doug, MW > I do not see set theory and mereology as alternatives that you choose > one from for your ontology, rather I see them as being appropriate > in different circumstances. One of the tests I use to determine which > is appropriate is whether I am or could be interested in the weight > of the collection. Sets are abstract and so do not have a weight. > A mereological sum on the other hand does. That's a very good, one-paragraph summary of the difference.  Formally, I would emphasize that set theory has two operators (subset and isIn), but mereology has only one operator (partOf). The partOf operator need not change the ontological category:  a car and a mereological sum of cars are both physical.  That's also the reason why mereology is better suited to plurals in NLs.  A single person, say Bob, can be an animate agent of an action, and a plural such as Bob and Sue can be the agents of the same verb. But the isIn or elementOf operator always treats the second operand as abstract.  Even if the first operand is a set, the second belongs to the category 'set of sets'.  That formalism does not have a simple mapping to natural languages, in which plurals do not change category. AS > ... as a definition of what is continuous, continuous mereology is > a lot simpler than set theory which can be used as a foundation > continuous point-sets, and thus mereology is better. A better question > is why do we need 'continuity' in the first place in modeling finite > and discrete phenomena? To answer your second question, set theory is fine for those phenomena. But Matthew gave a good answer for physical things, and the use of mereology for plurals is a good answer for applications to NLP. AS > set theory can be used in modeling granular structures that are found > all around in nature. I agree that you can use set theory for those purposes.  And set theory can be used in conjunction with continuous math in physics. Furthermore, the method of partitioning and projection by Bittner et al. can be adapted just as easily to set theory as to mereology. WF > I feel it is important to distinguish between what some formal ontology > says, however excellent that may be, and the domain concepts of groups > of domain practitioners. This point should always be considered in any ontology.  Formalism is necessary for computer processing, but it's not the ultimate goal. I put more faith in the judgment of practitioners who know the subject than in some programmer or philosopher who proposes a clever encoding. JFS >> The point Rom was trying to make is that the word 'body' is not >> synonymous with 'person'.  Those words are never used in ways >> that are interchangeable. DF > Fine.  But Rom was discussing parthood, not whether they are > synonymous or interchangeable.  If he claimed that a body was > only a (proper) part of a person, that would mean that the concepts > were not synonymous or interchangeable. Rom was criticizing the way parthood was used in some applications of mereology.  I believe that he was emphasizing the phrase "in the relevant sense".  He used the word 'part' only because it was used in the writings he was criticizing. Rom cited Wittgenstein's later philosophy as a basis for his approach. As a guideline for making an ontological decision, LW and RH would both give high priority to the following sentences:     Bob thinks that the sky is blue.     Bob's body thinks that the sky is blue.     Bob was walking to the store.     Bob's body was walking to the store. Note that you can't attribute walking or thinking to Bob's body by itself.  That's a clue that there is a category mistake in any attempt to identify Bob with his body. But note that the following two sentences are both acceptable:     Bob weighs 165 lbs.     Bob's body weighs 165 lbs. These examples show that Bob and his body have certain physical properties that are identical.  But English speakers don't consider the body by itself as the agent of actions (mental or physical). I have more faith in the common sense of English speakers than in the claims of philosophers who are trying to defend a theory. John _________________________________________________________________ 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 ``` _________________________________________________________________ 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    (01) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, John Bottoms Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Avril Styrman Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Matthew West Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Avril Styrman Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Chris Menzel