May I suggest looking at the following article on Aristotle's Logic vs other
Logics in the context of Knowledge Design Patters -- (01)
http://lyrawww.uvt.nl/~sluckelman/latex/ilml/ilml.pdf. (02)
Ramayya (03)
On May 19, 2012, at 11:28 AM, John F Sowa wrote: (04)
> Jack, Bradley, Cory, Amanda, Leo, Doug, et al.
>
> I was working on the slides for my tutorial at the Semantic Tech Conf
> in San Francisco while this thread was going on. Since it is related
> to my talk, I'd like to refer to the slides. But I don't want to
> send the URL to a public forum until after I present them on June 4.
>
> However, I put the slides on my web site in a temporary directory
> that is protected from Google by robots.txt:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/tmp/kdptut.pdf
> Knowledge Design Patterns
>
> The basic issues are related to the huge amount of conflicting
> metalanguage, as Jack noted:
>
> Jack R
>> We may have quite different labels for the same concepts...
>>
>> Am I understanding your intent?
>
> Most of the conflicts are created by an overabundance of metalevel
> jargon. That's why I emphasize first-order logic. It only requires
> simple English words: and, or, not, if-then, some, and every.
>
> If you use FOL as your metalanguage, you can get rid of talk about
> classes, attributes, properties, and features. Other terms that
> create more confusion than enlightenment are 'universals' and
> 'particulars'. You can talk about all the issues with just one
> metalevel term: *relation* .
>
> In the kdptut.pdf file, see slides 39 to 67. They show how simple
> English words can be mapped to different notations with a minimal
> amount of metalanguage.
>
> Bradley S
>> The Legacy also belongs to the object property or type "Compact"
>> class of vehicles. This makes it a Sedan as compared to a SUV.
>
> I don't disagree about the point, but you can get rid of the metalevel
> jargon if you use FOL as your metalanguage. In any dialect of CL,
> you can use the word 'relation' to replace 'property', 'class', and
> 'type'. You can even apply relations to relations. The only other
> useful metalevel term is 'function'. See slides 66 and 67.
>
> I admit there is a need to talk about collections of various kinds.
> For that purpose, I suggest the word 'set'. Sets are very widely
> taught and used, and they create far less confusion than classes.
>
> I also admit that the word 'type' is useful. I suggest the
> definition "a monadic relation used to determine membership in
> a set." (You can even get rid of Greek words like 'monadic' by
> calling them one-place, two-place, or N-place relations.)
>
> Cory
>> I have used "type" to mean the logical concept (same as yours) and
>> "class" to be the OO concept which also embodies an instance factory.
>
> That's another reason for getting rid of the word 'class' when talking
> about ontology. The words 'relation' and 'set' are used in common
> speech and in many different professions.
>
> If you define a type by a one-place relation, you can avoid conflicts
> with common usage and with most technical uses. Aristotle's word
> 'category' is another option. It has a long tradition in philosophy,
> and TV game shows have popularized that usage.
>
> Amanda
>> Having federation as a purpose gives us that guideline. If, say,
>> we were providing semantics for demographic data, we might need
>> one or more of the more specialized definitions.
>
> Purpose is essential for anything related to life. Social systems
> and demographic data are certainly related to life. For purpose,
> see slides 70 to 78. For systems, see slides 98 to 99.
>
> Note to Leo:
> Your comment about the need to avoid confusing semantics and ontology
> is important. I agree, but in an earlier comment, I said that the
> word 'semantics' has already acquired many conflicting uses. I discuss
> some of the issues in Section 6 (slides 84 to 101) of kdptut.pdf.
>
> Note to Doug F:
> Section 7 (slides 102 to 119) discusses my current views about
> the relationship between NLs and controlled NLs.
>
> I used to define a CNL as a formal language that uses a subset
> of the vocabulary and syntax of some NL. But I don't think it's
> useful to make a sharp distinction. I believe we can have tools
> that support a continuum of gradually tightening constraints:
> totally unconstrained tweets, somewhat better email, carefully
> edited documents, CNLs written for human readers, and CNLs that
> are just as formal as any computer language.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (06)
|