W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2001

Re: Signation

From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:14:35 -0500
Message-ID: <3A724B2B.E761544B@oakland.edu>
To: Matthew West <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>, Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
CC: SemioCom <semiocom@listbot.com>, RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, Arisbe <arisbe@stderr.org>
才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~

| I am leaving, I am leaving,
| but the fighter still remains.
| Hhh hhh hmm.
| Lie la lie.
|
| http://www.songfta.com/songs/songindex.html
| http://www.songfta.com/songs/X0013_boxer69.html

Matthew West wrote:
> 
> Dear Jon,
> 
> Unfortunately it is not enough when you and I agree :-(
> 
> See comments below.
> 
> Regards
>
> Matthew
>
> ============================================
> Matthew West
> Operations & Asset Management
> Shell Services International
> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
> Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
> http://www.shellservices.com/
> ============================================
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:  Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> > Sent:  26 January 2001 13:49
> >   To:  West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> >   Cc:  Stand Up Ontology
> > Subj:  Re: Signation
> >
> >
> > Matthew West wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Jon,
> > >
> > > > 才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > | A way out West they have a name
> > > > | For Wind and Rain and Fire --
> > > > | The Wind is "Wind",
> > > > | The Rain is "Rain",
> > > > | But the Fire they call "Fire".
> > > >
> > > > Matthew & All,
> > > >
> > > > Re:
> > > >
> > > > | I am happy to work with these ...
> > > > | but what do we call what it is in
> > > > | the real world that they refer to?
> > > >
> > > >  "Matthew"  is a sign that denotes Matthew   (in the real world).
> > > >  "x"        is a sign that denotes x         (in the real world).
> > > >  "<x, y>"   is a sign that denotes <x, y>    (in the real world).
> > > >  "R"        is a sign that denotes {<x, y> : <x, y> in R} (ITRW).
> > > > '"Matthew"' is a sign that denotes "Matthew" (in the real world).
> > > > '"x"'       is a sign that denotes "x"       (in the real world).
> > > > '"<x, y>"'  is a sign that denotes "<x, y>"  (in the real world).
> > > > '"R"'       is a sign that denotes '"R"'     (in the real world).
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > There's a pattern here.
> > > >
> > > > Jon Awbrey
> > > >
> > > > 才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > >
> > > MW:  Yes, there is a pattern in the examples you have given,
> > > but it does not always hold.  It is quite common to see
> > > a pattern of the sort:
> > >
> > > "<x, y>"               denotes x in the real world or
> > > "<a, b, c, d, e, f>"   denotes a in the real world
> > >
> > > It is perhaps worth remembering that this discussion
> > > started with Graham saying that activities WERE relations,
> > > where as I was saying that we sometimes represented activities
> > > as relations, where the relation really contains a number of things
> > > the activity is related to, including perhaps a reference to itself,
> > > but not other representation, which is not quite the same.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Matthew
> >
> > 才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Dear Matthew,
> >
> > I do want to be taken as trying to zing you on account of some zing
> > that somebody else did to me  -- I always really hate it, myself,
> > when somebody does that to me -- but what you said merely went
> > to remind me of a rather old and tiresome problem, one that
> > I wish that we all could get past, and I feel like I have
> > already contributed my darnedest bit of yarn to trying
> > to untangle it -- all to such little aveil, alas! --
> > and perhaps the antic frustrations of not being
> > able to rend this "antic issue" (AI) a toile
> > that would one day be of the "said & done"
> > variety and all of the kindred ambivalent
> > "sanguinity" bled through just a bit into
> > bloody irony, but I simply wish that we
> > could see through it all -- I tried to
> > give the Inquistive my scope on the
> > objects of our earnest attention,
> > but none are so blinkered by the
> > orbs of their vision as those
> > who tremble before imaginary
> > daimons, the ones that they
> > imagine inhabit the scopes,
> > never seeing 'tis the eyes
> > that habit what they see.
> >
> > But let me try to focus on what you say now:
> >
> > > MW:  Yes, there is a pattern in the examples you have given,
> > > but it does not always hold.  It is quite common to see
> > > a pattern of the sort:
> > >
> > > "<x, y>"               denotes x in the real world or
> > > "<a, b, c, d, e, f>"   denotes a in the real world
> >
> > I do not think that I would call it "quite common to see",
> > and although I believe that I may have run across a few
> > expressions that appear, from a certain angle, distance,
> > or perspective to look roughly or superfically similar
> > to these,
> 
> MW:  Let us consider specifics.  Every transaction processing system
> I have seen, where a transaction is an activity, looks like this.
> So it is quite common really.  It may also be quite efficient.

I really do not see this.

Let us retreat for a moment to contemplate canon:

|  "Matthew"  is a sign that denotes Matthew   (in the real world).
|  "x"        is a sign that denotes x         (in the real world).
|  "<x, y>"   is a sign that denotes <x, y>    (in the real world).
|  "R"        is a sign that denotes {<x, y> : <x, y> in R} (ITRW).
| '"Matthew"' is a sign that denotes "Matthew" (in the real world).
| '"x"'       is a sign that denotes "x"       (in the real world).
| '"<x, y>"'  is a sign that denotes "<x, y>"  (in the real world).
| '"R"'       is a sign that denotes '"R"'     (in the real world).

I am sure you noticed that signs also enter into the real world,
but later on in the game, as it were, at least, in this one way
of keeping score, and we may have to look into that, but later.

At any rate, I see no way around acknowledging that:

| "<x, y>"              is a sign that denotes the object <x, y>.
| "<a, b, c, d, e, f>"  is a sign that denotes the object <a, b, c, d, e, f>.

That is just the way that ordinary quotes work --
we are not talking about "emphasis quotes" here.

Now, if you want to say that:

| The object <x, y>              is the same as the object x.
| The object <a, b, c, d, e, f>  is the same as the object a.

Then I see no way to stop you, in which case you could say that:

| "<x, y>"              is a sign that denotes the object x.
| "<a, b, c, d, e, f>"  is a sign that denotes the object a.

But I am not sure whether this is what you,
or whoever it is, really means to say here.

> > I tend to suspect that the people who write
> > them -- I cannot guarantee that it was not me, too! --
> > are just being careless, or casual, or loose in their
> > canon, that probably they meant to write something else,
> > and that the job of reflection on expressions is to help
> > them -- or help myself, as the case may be! -- to untangle
> > their sense and, as Bobby Burns say, "to mend their ways".
> 
> MW: I agree, and this is what I was
> trying to do if you look back far enough.

Oh, I have probably missed a lot of the context
your comment, since I have been busy elsewhere.

> > > It is perhaps worth remembering that this discussion
> > > started with Graham saying that activities WERE relations,
> > > where as I was saying that we sometimes represented activities
> > > as relations, where the relation really contains a number of things
> > > the activity is related to, including perhaps a reference to itself,
> > > but not other representation, which is not quite the same.
> >
> > But, really, I cannot be responsible for the ways that other
> > people talk!
> 
> MW:  No, all we can do (and perhaps should do) is note that
> some peoples usage is that:
> 
> "<a, b, c, d, e, f>"   denotes   a   in the real world

Can you give me a concrete example -- I still cannot think of one.

Here, just to try and speed things up, I can think of an example
where I was almost tempted to say something just a bit like this.
Let me remind you of the story that I told about A and B, where
each of these two "objects" in the real world -- well, alright,
my imaginary real world, but you know what I mean -- is also
an "interpreter" of certain signs, and so is associated with
a sign relation, portions of which I set down as follows,
under the names "R(A)" and "R(B)", respectively:

| You can start out by imagining that two people, A and B, have a language
| that is restricted to just their own proper names, "A" and "B", plus the
| first and second person pronouns, "I" and "you", which will here be
| schematized as "i" and "u", respectively.
|
| To specify a sign relation one has to give three domains,
| the Object, Sign, and Interpretant domains, schematized
| here as O, S, and I, respectively.
|
| For this example, let us consider the two sign relations, R(A) and R(B),
| corresponding to the usages of the two "interpreters", A and B, respectively.
| 
| (Notation:  I will use "€" for "element of" and "" for "subset of".)
|
| We have the following:
|
| R(A), R(B)    O x S x I,
|
| O  =  {A, B},
|
| S  =  {"A", "B", "i", "u"},
|
| I  =  {"A", "B", "i", "u"}.
|
| R(A) has the following eight triples of the form <o, s, i>:
|
|   <A, "A", "A">
|   <A, "A", "i">
|   <A, "i", "A">
|   <A, "i", "i">
|   <B, "B", "B">
|   <B, "B", "u">
|   <B, "u", "B">
|   <B, "u", "u">
|
| R(B) has the following eight triples of the form <o, s, i>:
|
|   <A, "A", "A">
|   <A, "A", "u">
|   <A, "u", "A">
|   <A, "u", "u">
|   <B, "B", "B">
|   <B, "B", "i">
|   <B, "i", "B">
|   <B, "i", "i">
|
| Following a usage of C.S. Peirce, the elements of a sign relation R,
| that is, the ordered triples of the form <o, s, i> € R, are known as
| its "elementary sign relations".  (This is roughly Peirce's meaning.)
|
| Refs:
|
| http://ltsc.ieee.org/logs/suo/msg00729.html
| http://ltsc.ieee.org/logs/suo/msg01224.html
| http://ltsc.ieee.org/logs/suo/msg01233.html

Now, it is very tempting to just go ahead and identify
the "objective interpreters" A and B with the portions
of sign relations that are indicated in an immediately
relevant context, and thus to write out the identities,
A = R(A) and B = R(B), or, to write it all out in full:

A  =  {<A, "A", "A">, <A, "A", "i">, <A, "i", "A">, <A, "i", "i">,
       <B, "B", "B">, <B, "B", "u">, <B, "u", "B">, <B, "u", "u">}.

B  =  {<A, "A", "A">, <A, "A", "u">, <A, "u", "A">, <A, "u", "u">,
       <B, "B", "B">, <B, "B", "i">, <B, "i", "B">, <B, "i", "i">}.

Now, we are treading on recursed ground here, or very nearly,
apparently defining A and B in terms of themselves, in a way
that would seem to lead to an infinite regress, so it seems.
Now, the situation is really not as bad as all that, not if
one is careful, and qualifies everything with due attention,
but still, it is probably a good idea to avoid this way of
expressing things if at all possible.  One way to stay out
of trouble and confusion is to maintain the distinctions
between A and R(A) and between B and R(B), respectfully.
Another way to do it is to "hedge the equal signs" that
appear just above, stipulating that they do not signify
literal identities but only mark relationships whereby
the ostensible definienda A and B are "represented by"
their "actions" on the surrogate definientia, that is,
the basic elements {A, B, "A", "B", "i", "u"} that go
to make up the triples, that go to make up the sets
of triples, that are the sign relations in question.

> We can then use this to transform their view
> to ours (or just mine if ours is optimistic).
> 
> > I can talk till I am truly "blue of face" (BOF),
> > but, without the purple tinge of authority, who
> > under heaven would listen up to my scarlet prose?
> 
> MW:  The key issue here is what is communicated rather than what is sent.
> We need people to go "ah ha" not simply "ugh".

unh, huh ...

> > I can think that I see a way to untangle this --
> > I can send pages and pages to the purpose --
> > but that is said and done, and so am I --
> > to that I am resigned --
> > hic et nunc --
> > anyway ...
> >
> > Many Regards,
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > 才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~

I hope that this is a little bit clearer.

Sincerely yours,

Jon Awbrey

才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~才~~~~~~~~
Received on Friday, 26 January 2001 23:14:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT