John, (01)
you wrote: (02)
> Any term, such as 'primitive concept' or 'description' that is not specified
>in
> terms of logic does not belong in a standard
> -- except as an informal (non-normative) comment. (03)
I reject this outright! Try defining 'time interval' or 'duration' rigorously.
You can axiomatize them into the ground, and still be unable to tell time from
length, without appealing to some other undefinable term. Or, to take an
example from Linnaeus, what characterizes a 'kingdom'? And if you think you
can do that, then please define formally the properties used in that
characterization. Ultimately, your turtles have to rest on something. (04)
AFAIK, only in mathematics can one define a body of knowledge entirely in terms
of axiomatic characterizations. Every natural and social science starts with
some concepts taken to be primitive. And yes, a few years later, they are
known not to be primitive, but then they are replaced with another set of
concepts taken to be primitive. (05)
If everyone followed your rule there would be no standards. (It is rather like
Alice's rejoinder to "Speak only when you are spoken to.")
Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. ;-) (06)
-Ed (07)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 5:14 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal (logical) Definitions in ontology
>
> Ed,
>
> Our notes crossed in the mail.
>
> > To start the process, there must somewhere be 'primitive concepts'
> > -- things you can't formally "define". In ISO 1087 terms, such things
> > have 'descriptions'
>
> Every NL description that is precise enough to be implemented in a digital
> computer can be specified in some formal logic.
>
> But it's not possible to specify all predicates by closed-form definitions.
> However, it is possible to specify them by axioms that relate them to one
> another.
>
> Any term, such as 'primitive concept' or 'description' that is not specified
>in
> terms of logic does not belong in a standard
> -- except as an informal (non-normative) comment.
>
> 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
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|