ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Hassan Aït-Kaci <hak@xxxxxxx>
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:33:31 -0700
Message-id: <F0EF83D7-1DC2-4E79-AD2D-A3217180DD2D@xxxxxxx>

Peirce would not accept this use of x either, but for different reasons.  
Indeed, nor would Peirce argue that this question is a matter of preference or 
notation.    (01)

Steven    (02)



On Mar 21, 2013, at 9:28 PM, "Barkmeyer, Edward J" <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx> 
wrote:    (03)

> Actually, John, the last observation is slightly inaccurate.  'give' is a 
>predicate.  A is not connected to 'give' but rather to some "event" x that 
>satisfies 'give', and similarly, B and C.  Moreover, the 3 dyadic relations 
>capture the notion of distinct "roles" in the 'give' event.  I prefer to speak 
>of the existentialized event x as a "giving" (the gerund).  It is my 
>recollection that Adam Pease also explicitly uses the term 'gerund' in 
>describing the CELT (KIF) model of A gives B to C.
> 
> -Ed
> 
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer                       Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Engineering Laboratory -- Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263               Office: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263               Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
> ________________________________________
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>[sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 5:44 AM
> To: Hassan At-Kaci; [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: 
>BACnet Ontology
> 
> Two points:
> 
> 1. It is certainly true that you can map A gives B to C into a form that uses 
>only dyadic relation.
> 
> 2. But Peirce was trying to explain that you have simply converted one triad 
>into a triad of a different form.
> 
> I'll just use predicate calculus notation, since it's easy to type.  But the 
>point is obvious when you use a graph notation.
> 
> With a triadic relation:
> 
>     gives(A,B,C)
> 
> With three dyadic relations and a monadic relation give(x):
> 
>     (Ex) give(x) & agent(x,A) & theme(x,B) & recipient(x,C)
> 
> In the first version, you have a triadic connection of A, B, and C to the 
>relation named gives.
> 
> In the second version, you have a triadic connection of A to agent to give, B 
>to theme to give, and C to recipient to give.
> 
> You still have a triad, but the central node is called give instead of gives.
> 
> 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
>     (04)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (05)

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