Re: logic

 

Dear all: 

I post this mail to the common field. My apologies it
was send only to destinators. 

Best Regards 

On 2013-09-25 01:00,
Delfi Ramirez wrote: 

> Hi Yuik: 
> 
> Please might you concrete the
fields of DL you need to meet. 
> 
> I mention : First and second order
logic belongs to our field of knowledge as a philosphers). For this
reason, as kindly Henry has appointed, we might provide some points of
knowledge for you before Ontologies come abroad. The main idea in
Tarky's model is the concept of Truth: "Tarski's theory of truth is for
formalized languages so giving examples in natural language has no
validity according to Tarski's theory of truth"
> 
> Here, one of my
professors approach to the question :
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequence-algebraic/ [4] 
> 
> Even
he is nearly reatired, I can always mail to him for any questions 
> 
>
Waiting for your needs 
> 
> Best Regards 
> 
> On 2013-09-25 00:41,
Henry Story wrote: 
> 
>> On 25 Sep 2013, at 00:09, Yuk Hui
<huiyuk@gmail.com [1]> wrote: 
>> 
>>> hi henry, 
>>> hope this finds
you well. i need a bit of your help with logic, since you are the
expert! what is the relation between description logic and Tarski's
model logic? SW is based on description logic, how far does it go away
from the FOL? i am interested in the question of systems, and the
evolution of these systems... millions of thanks. 
>>> all the best,

>>> yuk
>> Hi Yuk, 
>> Dean Allemang who wrote "Semantic Web for the
Working Ontologist" will be much 
>> better placed to guide you with
regard to your question above. 
>> As I understand from our philosophy
of the Web Conferences the Semantic Web is 
>> a variation on Common
Logic which Christopher Menzel presented in the Philosophy 
>> of the
Web seminars in Paris in 2012: 
>>
http://web-and-philosophy.org/seminaire-philosophie-du-web/slides/ [2]

>> And Common Logic is just first order logic where you start with
names as 
>> the invariants, allowing one to change syntax as one
wishes. But that maps 
>> down to first order logic I think. So RDF and
first order logic seem really close 
>> to each other when you look at
documents such as RDF Semantics. 
>> Now OWL is a subset of this. It
defines particular set theoretic relations it 
>> seems to me, and
establishes the consequences one can draw from them. 
>> It seems to be
missing thoughts on indirect contexts which we now know to 
>> be named
graphs. 
>> But really the answer is that I don't know - I can just make
educated guesses. 
>> There are people on the Web Philosophy mailing
list who will be able to guide 
>> you much better. 
>> Henry 
>> 
>>
Social Web Architect 
>> http://bblfish.net/ [3]
> 
> -- 
> 
> Delfi
Ramirez
> http://segonquart.net
> http://delfiramirez.info
> 
>
skype:segonquart 
> 
> twitter:delfinramirez
 

Links:
------
[1]
mailto:huiyuk@gmail.com
[2]
http://web-and-philosophy.org/seminaire-philosophie-du-web/slides/
[3]
http://bblfish.net/
[4]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequence-algebraic/