I've been thinking a lot about the personal problem that affects
you and me. It began when I first entered Ontolog Forum
and did not satisfy your desire for proof of the semantic
correctness of the mKR language. Both of us contributed
to the problem.
1) Your only comment about semantics was -- do your homework
2) I did not accept responsibility for proving correctness.
I did read a paper that Pat Hayes wrote about the semantics of RDF.
I frankly did not consider it very important because
All of Pat's semantic propositions (and more)
are automatically enforced by the run-time system
of mKR. To be more specific: they are enforced by
the mKE program; they are axioms.
I have two more brief comments concerning our most recent "spats".
1) My axiomatic concepts "spam" was a response to your apparent
unappreciation of the importance and usefulness of axiomatic concepts.
2) I will be happy to translate anything you choose to mKR.
You can even specify what context I should assume for the reader of
my mKR version -- man on the street, expert scientist, etc. Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 12:19:03 -0400
> From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] axiomatic concepts
> I accidentally hit send.
> First, stop making claims that something as trivial as you're
> proposing would magically solve the issues that people have been
> working on for over two millennia.
> > Could you be a little more specific about what you want me to look for?
> Short answer: Everything. The slides are just an intro. Follow up
> the references at the bottom of many of the slides (and at the end).
> Note the 10 linguists and philosophers on slide 4 of goal2.pdf. Every
> one of them had a deeper insight into the issues of language structure
> than your girlfriend Ayn. But they were emphasizing different aspects.
> All those aspects are important, and it's essential to find ways of
> relating and integrating them.
> Re consciousness: look at slides 37 and 38 of goal2.pdf. Then go read
> the two books I cite -- by Damiso and by Dehaene. They make your claims
> look naive and childish in comparison.
> The more notes you send to Ontolog Forum, the worse it gets.
> Suggestion: Don't send any more notes until you have finished that
> exercise of mapping one page to your notation with enough precision
> that another person could map it back to an equivalent English version.