On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:40:30PM +0100, John A. Bateman wrote:
> I think we'd almost support Michael Gruninger's proposal. Apart from a
> possible clarification wrt 1 and 2:
>
> >- A theory is a set of sentences in a language conformant with Common Logic.
> >- An ontology is a set of theories.
>
> The language we use for ontologies is CASL (see previous email), which
> is strongly typed. As long as this is 'conformant' in the intended
> sense fine. Or has CL moved on the typing issue? (01)
Typed languages are included in the category of "segregated" CL
dialects, i.e., dialects that nontrivially partition the category of
names, notably into individuals constants and n-place predicate/function
symbols. Additional typing restrictions on the permissible arguments
for a given predicate symbol or function symbol are allowed. The spec
only requires that there be a category of atomic sentences in a dialect;
it does not legislate exactly which combinations of predicate and
argument sequence are to be deemed legitimate. (02)
-chris (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (04)
|