Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal (logical) Definitions in ontology

[Alex Shkotin <alex.shkotin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert,

you should investigate http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/ as

1) it was at least one workshop about "other logics",

2) at one web-workshop one lady (may be http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AmandaVizedom) has written in chat that FOL is not enough.

And may be somebody has a list of languages used to write ontologies just check vs FOL?

For example OWL 2 Full is not FOL.

Alex

2014-06-24 7:25 GMT+04:00 <rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

Thank you all for the feedback thus far. A couple of quick follows-ups:

@Alex Shkotin: question 3 is asking what the pro's and con's are of each non-FOL/non-syllogistic-based logic for ontology in addition to FOL-based logics.

@Dr.Sowa:
- what do you mean by "closed-form definitions"?
- I'm not sure I agree about this, and so I understand Edward Barkmeyer's reservations as well, but perhaps i'm not getting the gist of the whole context you have in mind:
"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."

To add context to my original question: I'd basically like to know what non-FOL/non-syllogism logical formalisms are there for ontologies?

This question assumes that FOL is based on Aristotelean syllogistic logic. Based on my studies in philosophy FOL is essentially presented as a modern form or translation of it.

Now, my concern with this is that since syllogistic logic is not how the mind reasons, and is also very limited (in terms of producing truthful results/consequences, and expressivity, if not other things), why isn't a non-syllogistic-based logic used for ontologies? Why is FOL used?

If anyone can answer, or address this, I eagerly await your thoughts. Thanks.

Aside from that, please continue mentioning any other logics that are used.

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

By the same logic, a concept can be the product of
'subordinate components', or more linguistically
aimed, 'a product of properties and behaviors'.
The choice of alternative interpretations, or the
choice of a component list, is the distinction
between Mereology and other forms of logical
representation.

So unions of alternatives and products of
component parts seem to be equivalent castings.

-Rich

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On

Behalf Of Barkmeyer, Edward J
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 2:17 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal
(logical) Definitions in ontology

John makes an important addition to my list.  In
addition to defining a concept as the union of a
set of 'subordinate' concepts', it is also
possible to define a 'class' or a 'term' (less
clearly a 'concept') as a specific set of named
things.  This latter is also referred to as an
"extensional definition".  One can define 'primary
color' as "one of red, orange, yellow, green,
blue, indigo, violet," without being at all clear
about what the distinguishing properties are.

(I tend to think that a 'concept' should have a
definition that involves specifying properties,
but then "being the color red" and "being John
Malkovich" can be considered properties.)

-Ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F
Sowa
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 4:47 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal
(logical) Definitions in ontology
>
> Ed and Pat,
>
> Pat raises an important point:
>
> PJH
> > If all classes are defined in terms of other
classes, where does the
> > whole process get started?
>
> All three of those methods assume you have some
classes to start:
>
> EJB
> > 1) identify a more general concept and the
delimiting characteristics
> >    of the subordinate concept being defined
> >    This is exactly:  An A is a B that C.
> > 2) identify a list of subordinate concepts
that together cover the
> >    more general concept being defined - the
union of other defined classes:
> >    An A is a B or a C or a D.
> > 3) One can also define a Class as the
intersection of two or more classes,
> >    but that is just a special case of (1):  An
A is a B that is also a C.
>
> Those are all set forming operations.  Set
theory has a starting method:
>     {x | P(x)} -- the set of all x for which
some property P is true.
>
> That property P can also be specified by
enumeration:
>     {x | x=a or x=b or x=c}
>
> What distinguishes a class from a set are the
identity criteria:
>
>   1. Two sets S1 and S2 are identical if they
have the same elements.
>
>   2. Two classes or concepts C1 and C2 are
identical if they have the
>      same or logically equivalent defining
property or predicate P.
>
> The set of all cows, for example, changes with
every birth or death.
> But the concept cow is determined by an
unchanging predicate P.
>
> John
>
>
__________________________________________________
________
> _______
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
> 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
>

__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J



_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

_________________________________________________________________
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)