Re: [ontolog-forum] Architectural considerations in Ontology Development

[Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:59 AM, doug  foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 The requirement is not to express it in *FOL*.  

From what I have heard, the better answers to the some of the test questions  involved quantification over predicates (which is not traditionally GOFOL, even though Cyc and CL have a first-order semantics).    

Tying back in to the original subject, this kind of expressivity allows for compact _expression_ of common patterns, but avoids many of the pitfalls in true higher order semantics.

Also on a related note,  4D and 3D+1 are just different views of the same rabbit. 

If the (x,y,z) co-ordinates are lifted reals, there is an unambiguous mapping of abstract entities that have no spatial extent (as opposed to having a zero spacial extent).  

Similarly in both cases the time axis needs to deal with intervals that are contiguous, but which do not have any time points in common. 

There is *no* fact of the matter

What matters is that the representation presented to the users of the system is matches their intuitive understandings, and that the representation used for reasoning uses is optimal for the computations performed. 

_________________________________________________________________
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)