[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of words/concepts that cannot be comp

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Gregg Reynolds <dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:44:38 -0500
Message-id: <CAO40MikJM1KyCan5q2U1hNq1Ab3paQ0t-+-uJKL3n1X=A0zmfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, tknorr <tknorr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good morning,
I am looking for (I'm going to call it) 'fundamental concepts' and I am
making the assumption that there is some basic agreed level of
definition of these concepts so we don't end up in Physics and Chemistry.

I am assuming this level is arbitrary and we can agree with it.

My criteria for 'fundamental concept' is that it cannot be replaced by a
semantic net-let that crosses the agreed level.

Have you looked at Natural Semantic Metalanguage?  Philosophically it's vulnerable to various critiques but it might be useful for your purposes.


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)

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