W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

Re: resources, denotations and lattices

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:56:59 -0700
Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, www-tag@w3.org
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Message-Id: <45C6DC7E-BC76-11D7-8086-000393A3327C@fla.fujitsu.com>

I recommend reading Sowa's book on knowledge representation. Apart from 
anything else, his conceptual graph notation is cool!

Frank McCabe

On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 10:20  AM, Graham Klyne wrote:

>
> I was offline when I drafted my last response, and have now done a 
> little digging.
>
> Short verion:
> [1]  http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signtalk.htm
> [2]  http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/autotalk.htm
> [3]  http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.htm
>
>
> Longer version:
>
> It seems the keywords Sowa and Lattice appear in two different 
> contexts:
>
> (a) Sowa's formation of an upper-level Ontology which is based on 
> earlier philosophical works and appears in his book on Knowledge 
> Representation.  I don't think that is going to assist in the 
> particular topic that lead to this discussion.
>
> (b) "John Sowa's potentially infinite open-ended lattice of theories", 
> which might have some bearing on the topic....  This, too, seems to be 
> related to upper-ontology work, but has more resonance with the 
> what-does-a-URI-identify question.  Folling this line, I found some 
> possible jump-off points:
>   http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/autotalk.htm
> This slide suggests a link between theories and "what-is-identified":
>   http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/autotalk.htm#s17
>
> and:
>   http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signtalk.htm
> note reference to "Language Games":
> [[
> Words only have a precise, formalizable meaning with respect to a 
> particular language game.
> ]]
>
> and (this is a paper with much more detail, which I've yet to read):
>   http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.htm
>
> #g
> --
>
> At 10:52 22/07/03 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> Mine too, but I'm almost terrified to leave this in
>> the hands of the experts. :-)
>>
>> I saw a reference to Scott's work in the Google listing.
>> I don't know what the originating relationships are. I
>> know that Sowa writes with unusual clarity on the issues
>> of concepts and set theory.  He derives from Peirce and
>> clarifies that as well which is no mean feat.  It may
>> be that for the architecture, one has to admit that
>> the theories about why it works are available but not
>> as important as capturing the how.  In the case
>> of one URI = one concept, that is easy to do:
>> assignment.  To the case of proving that there is
>> only one concept to which that assignment can be
>> made, that isn't doable except insofar as assignment
>> to the empty set (the theory of all theories) makes sense.
>> Sowa is clear about the lattice membership.
>>
>> len
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
>>
>> Getting out of my depth, but...  does this have any relationship to 
>> the
>> work that Dana Scott did back in the 1970s on lattices and a theory of
>> computation, which in turn provided some basis for denotational 
>> semantics
>> of programming languages?  I recall that the notions of approximation 
>> and
>> monotonicity came into that work, with some reference to functions 
>> being
>> ordered according to some notion of "accuracy".
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>> At 09:45 22/07/03 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>>
>> >You could research John Sowa's lattice theory for
>> >more precise language to describe this notion.
>> >
>> >Apologies but Google returns far too much material
>> >to provide a precise URI to start the research
>> >if you aren't already acquainted with it.  And
>> >that tells us something about URIs and precise
>> >identification. :-)
>> >
>> >len
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
>> >
>> >We agree that we, as people, try to use a URI to refer to
>> >a "single", more or less consistent, concept that is a topic of
>> >communication.  But there is no way to formalize this single 
>> concept:  I
>> >think the best we can do is to describe it as a kind of "locus" of
>> >denotations from interpretations that satisfy some formal statements 
>> we can
>> >make about it.
>>
>> -------------------
>> Graham Klyne
>> <GK@NineByNine.org>
>> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
>
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 14:57:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:19 GMT