Do you have a reference to the PROSE work you mentioned below? (01)
Google doesn't distinguish "Ed Lowry PROSE" from a lot of chaff. (02)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John
F Sowa
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 6:49 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages (04)
Ed, William, and Pat, (05)
EL
> Students everywhere are taught how to arrange pieces of
information by
> educators who are unaware of elementary pieces of information
that are
> well designed to be easily arranged. To me, few educational
practices
> seem more obviously unreasonable. (06)
I agree. Ontology has been debated in philosophical circles for
at least 2500 years, and many versions of formal logic have been
used to define and reason about ontology for about 2300 years. (07)
The result is an immense literature with a huge number of terms
that have been used (formally and informally) in a very large
number of ways. (08)
As I have said for years, I like the ideas behind your original
system called PROSE (Properties and Relations of Objects Simply
Expressed). As a general strategy, I would recommend: (09)
1. A formal logic with the barest *minimum* amount of
terminology.
It must at least contain FOL + the option of quantifying
over
functions and relations + the option of using metalanguage
for
talking about whatever languages are being defined. (010)
2. A huge *purging* of the immense philosophical terminology
to a minimal set that is formally defined in the logic of
#1. (011)
3. The option of designing an open-ended family of formal
notations,
linear and/or graphic, that have a precise mapping to #1 and
#2. (012)
4. There may be huge debates about how to map NL terminology
(including any and all terms in philosophy, science,
business,
the arts, etc., to the terms in point #2). But any proposed
solution must be defined in the logic and minimal
terminology of
points #1 and #2 (or #3, which is defined in terms of #1 and
#2). (013)
WF
>> ....sigh... (014)
PH
> This is why I decline to take part in these, um, debates. (015)
I sympathize. I have been tied up with some deadlines for the
past week. But I'll make a few more comments about the debates
in this thread and the "qua" thread -- perhaps over the weekend. (016)
John (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|