Ed, (01)
EB> It is my impression that the VIM 'particular quantity'
> _is_ a 'trope'... The 'magnitude' is an equivalence class
> of particular quantities, and that seems to be the more
> useful concept, as Pat H suggests. (02)
I agree with Pat. (03)
I am all in favor of *reading* philosophical treatises that
analyze and name all sorts of relationships. However, the
definitions of those names tend to vary from one century to the
next and even from one philosopher to the next. Trying to dump
all those names into a single coherent presentation is almost
impossible and usually counterproductive. It tends to create
much more confusion than enlightenment. (04)
One of the useful results of using Common Logic or predicate
calculus and other versions of FOL is that they enable all sorts of things
to be represented by relations, and there is no
requirement that those relations be given special names like
'property', 'attribute', 'characteristic', 'trope', or 'class'. (05)
Rather than argue about names of relations, I suggest that all
relations be represented by *relations* in Common Logic. If
they are later mapped to other notations, the names used in
those notations can be used -- but *only* for those notations.
Any terms from philosophy should be relegated to the footnotes
and commentary, not in any normative part of any standard. (06)
John Sowa (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (08)
|