Re: Desirata for Symbols (was Re: What do the ontologists want)

>pat:
> > sandro:
> > >What possible advantage does "urn:elvis" (or any other URI-like thing)
> > >have over "elvis" as a logic symbol?
> > >
> > >1.  We can prevent unintentional re-use.   This is like
> > >    com.sun.SomeJavaClass or w3c_some_C_library_function.  Doing this
> > >    allows us to skip a symbol translation stage in reasoning about
> > >    two different expressions.
> >
> > Several problems with this include the fact that often, with names,
> > one NEEDS to have 're-use' in order to refer to something. That is
> > largely what names are for in social use of language, if you think
> > about it. But I have argued this to death in earlier threads.
>
>Er yes -- that's why I said "prevent UNINTENTIONAL re-use."

Oh, sorry, I see what you mean.

>In logic terms, I believe this feature lets you make skolum
>functions/constants.

Thoralf Skolem 
(http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Skolem 
.html ) would turn in his grave, but yes.

> > >    I think there are cases, with agents communicating in a multi-path
> > >    network, where the translation problem becomes impossible to solve
> > >    without at least a mechanism for generating unique agent (or
> > >    document) identifiers.  And if you need that generation mechanism
> > >    for agents, you might as well make it available for all objects.
> >
> > Not all names are identifiers!  Most objects do not have identifiers
> > in this sense.
> > A name-clash of identifiers is a computational error. Re-use of 
>names is not.
>
>Ah, sorry -- I remember you arguing about the distinction between
>names and identifiers earlier, but I have neither understood nor
>started using it.   When I'm writing primarily to you, I try to use
>the term "symbol."

No, please say what you mean, and I will try to remember that I might 
disagree with you and not keep snapping at your ass.

>
> > >2.  There are some social mechanisms in place to designate who has
> > >    authority to define the denotation of the symbol.  The clearest is
> > >    probably urn:oid, which involves a whole mechanism in
> > >    international law deligating denotational authority.  (I don't
> > >    know how well it works, but I've heard it tries.)
> >
> > Denotational authority? Wow. You and I definitely live in different
> > universes. There are no laws about denotational authority. The only
> > person who has "denotational authority" (impossible to type this
> > without smiling) over the words I use is me.
>
>I'm not saying denotational authorities work well, just that some
>people try to create them.  Certainly bodies of law do define certain
>terms.  In Massachusetts, I beleive I can be thrown in jail for
>calling myself a "doctor" or "lawyer" (in certain situations), but I'm
>certainly free to call myself a "shmoctor" or "arguer".

Yes, exactly. You are free to use any *new* names you want to create 
(in any format you like). Thats what the logical inference rules say, 
as well. If you go using other names that other people already have 
meanings for, you might get into all kinds of trouble. (Logic doesnt 
say what kind of trouble beyind generating contradictions, but then 
logic doesnt say anything about the social use of names.)

Actually I bet that you can only be thrown in jail for saying that 
you  *are* a doctor, lawyer, etc., rather than just for using the 
names. In other words, its the fraudulent claim that you make that 
gets you the jail time, not just the use of some text string (which 
is protected by some amendment or other, isnt it?) Misusing a 
trademark, now, *can* get you into trouble, which is a closer 
analogy, but I think it is civil rather than criminal law, 
interestingly enough.

> > >    I have no idea how this actually helps, beyond the functionality
> > >    in point #1.  Who cares if symbols starting urn:oid:1.2.840.113556
> > >    may only legally be "defined" by Microsoft?  How do we use that
> > >    fact?
> > >
> > >3.  Some URIs can point humans and/or machines to some definitional
> > >    text, possibly even some permanent definitional text.  But is
> > >    there an advantage to
> > >        "elvis according to the formal definition at 
>http://example.com/elvi
> > s"
> > >        (aka "http://example.com/elvis#elvis")
> > >    over
> > >        "elvis234234"        [elvis with some uniqueness mechanism]
> > >       with the nearby assertion
> > >        ("elvis234234", formal_definition_website, 
>"http://example.com/elvis
> > ")
> > >
> > >    The later form gives us much more flexibilty to explore approaches
> > >    to "definition", whatever that means.
> >
> > The denotation of my name is me, not a definitional text.
>
>Of course.  But some people think the symbol one uses in public for a
>thing should be text which includes instructions for finding out more
>about the thing.  Is that useful?

Yes. (I wrote an entire paragraph and then realised all it said was 
that I agree. :-)

BUt a question: some folk seem to want the symbol to include text 
which includes instructions for finding out about the *symbol*, not 
the thing named by it. (Eg transmission times for messages, author 
source, etc.) Did you mean that? I have no gripe with that either, 
but I would lke to see the distinction kept clean.

Pat Hayes

---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Sunday, 20 May 2001 13:49:52 UTC