RE: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDFreification)

I'll second Chris's suggestions on this. His citations are most of the
folks who have addressed issues in formal semantics and formal
pragmatics. I might recommend:

Gamut, L.T.F.  1991.  Logic, Language, and Meaning, Volume 2:
Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar.  The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London. 

as a good introduction to these topics from the perspective of formal
natural language semantics/pragmatics.  

LTF Gamut is an collective pseudonym like Nicolas Bourbaki in
foundational math. LTF Gamut is rumored to be: Dutch logicians Johan
van Benthem, Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, Martin Stokhof and Henk
Verkuyl, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.T.F._Gamut.

Thanks,
Leo
_____________________________________________ 
Dr. Leo Obrst       The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics 
lobrst@mitre.org    Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics 
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305 
Fax: 703-983-1379   McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@colab.cim3.net
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@colab.cim3.net] On Behalf Of Chris Menzel
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 5:08 PM
To: Azamat
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org; ONTAC-WG General Discussion; fmanola@acm.org;
hhalpin@ibiblio.org; pfps@research.bell-labs.com; John F. Sowa
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of
RDFreification)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:37:57PM +0300, Azamat wrote:
> Chris,
> It is a standard account of meaning dimensions from authoritative
> sources, dictionaries and references. 

Well, I wasn't objecting to the dimensions of meaning you identify so
much as the glosses you provided for them.

> But i am very intrigued to read your rendition from 'a great deal of
> the relevant literature.'
> 
> Please find below very instructive works written by Mario Bunge (how
to 
> formalize natural language, semantics and pragmatics within a single 
> foundation ontology):
> 
> 1. Semantics I: Sense and Reference, D. Reidel Publishing Co.;
Dordrecht, 
> Boston (1974)
> 
> 2. Semantics II: Interpretation and Truth, D. Reidel Publishing Co.; 
> Dordrecht, Boston (1974)
> 
> 3. 'The Relation of Logic and Semantics to Ontology', Journal of 
> Philosophical Logic N3, (1974)

Thank you for the suggestions, Azamat.  It seems to me that if you are
relying upon a single, rather idiosyncratic source like Bunge, it might
explain the disconnect here.  (Of course, you might be relying on
others, but the fact that you only cite Bunge suggests he has
influenced
you significantly.)  In fact, I rather admire Bunge's work, especially
his emphasis on the construction of rigorous formal theories but, for
good or ill, he has not been terribly influential, and his ideas are
somewhat outside the mainstream.  I do not intend this to be dismissive
-- perhaps we should all be paying Bunge far more heed.  I am only
trying to explain my claim that your brief account of meaning did not
square well with "a great deal of the relevant literature".  My
comments
about modality and intentionality in my response to you were based upon
the huge body of literature on modality, intentionality, intensional
logic, the semantics of natural language, and AI that has accumulated
since Frege, and which has grown exponentially since the development of
"Kripke" (i.e., "possible world") semantics, the culmination of the
work
of Prior, Kanger, Hintikka, Dummett, and others in the 50s.  In
addition
to Kripke's own work, I have in mind in particular the work of
Montague,
Hintikka, Lewis, Kaplan, Stalnaker, Kamp, Putnam, Chisholm, Searle,
Salmon, van Benthem and others.  While it is true that the semantics of
statements involving intentional verbs indicating "mental attitudes
towards states, actions or changes" have been analyzed in terms of
Kripke semantics (e.g., Hintikka's account of belief, and applications
of it to AI by Moore, Halpern and others), there is simply not the sort
of essential connection between modality and the intentional attitudes
that you suggest, and the basic semantics of modal languages itself, as
reflected in the literature noted, has nothing whatever to do with
them.
I thought it important to point this out, as your post suggested
otherwise.

Regards,

Chris Menzel

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@tamu.edu>
> To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>
> Cc: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>; <semantic-web@w3.org>; 
> <fmanola@acm.org>; "Adrian Walker" <adrianw@snet.net>; 
> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>; "John F. Sowa" <sowa@BESTWEB.NET>
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 1:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of
RDF 
> reification)
> 
> >On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:23:38AM +0300, Azamat wrote:
> >>The whole matter is not thus complicated as you think. The talking
> >>point is that meanings have several basic aspects or dimensions or
> >>quantities: extensional, intensional, pragmatic and modal.
Intension
> >>is about a primary meaning or significance, basic definition and
> >>content and all the essential implications and relations involved;
> >>while extension relates to special, child classes or individual
> >>entities. Modality implies mental attitudes towards states, actions
or
> >>changes usually indicated by lexical verbs. Pragmatics is about
> >>sentence utterances in the context of discourse, human or machine.
> >>Thus additionally to syntactic and semantic aspects, there is a
> >>pragmatical meaning involving an agent's intentions and
communicative
> >>acts and understanding of communication. As John Sowa defines: 'a
sign
> >>is an entity that indicates (represents) another entity to some
agent
> >>(a human, animal or robot) for some purpose', in [Ontology,
Metadata,
> >>and Semiotics]
> >
> >You realize of course that all four of the notions you are
describing
> >briefly above are fraught with controversy and, moreoever, that
several
> >of your own glosses do not jibe with more or less standard
treatments.
> >Notably, vast expanses of the modal landscape have nothing whatever
to
> >do with mental attitudes (which are usually dealt with under the
rubric
> >of "intentionality" with a "t").  It's all well and good that you
have
> >your own account of how everything fits together, but it might be
> >beneficial at least to acknowledge that your account is your own,
and
> >that it does not necessarily square with a great deal of the
relevant
> >literature.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Chris Menzel
 
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
gWG

Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 22:36:16 UTC