- From: Fabian Neuhaus <fabian.neuhaus@nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:53:35 -0400
- To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
- CC: SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
Christopher Menzel wrote: >> The scopes and subject matters of Ontology and Logic shouldn't be >> mixed. >> The real semantics or meanings of any symbolism or notation is >> defined by >> ontology; >> > > Silly me, I've been thinking that the real semantics of any symbolism > is defined by, you know, its *semantics*. > > -chris > > Chris, The topic was *real* semantics of a statement "p". You need to distinguish the different kind of "semantics" that are relevant: The semantics of "p" is defined by its semantics. The real semantics of "p" is defined by its ontology. The irreal semantics of "p" is defined by its epistemology. The Davidson semantics of "p" is defined by its truth-conditions. The Wittgensteinian semantics of "p" is defined by how it is used. The Fregian semantics of "p" is defined by its sense. The Platonian semantics of "p" is defined by what your soul remembers of the world of ideas. The Agnewian semantics of "p" is "true" if "p" contains an alliteration; otherwise it is false. The Cheneyian semantics of "p" is classified. The Derridaian semantics of "p" is vague and has to be deconstructed after using it. The Colberian semantics of "p" is defined by what your gut feels about "p". The Humpty Dumpty semantics of "p" is what HE wants "p" to mean. Greetings Fabian
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 11:04:26 UTC