Re: rdf inclusion

From: "Bill Andersen" <andersen@ontologyworks.com>

> It's unclear what Cyc's model theory is at all.  So if you pick some model
> theory T, it's a fair bet that Cyc's model theory, whatever it is, is
> inconsistent with T.  At it's base, the Cyc engine is a resolution theorem
> prover augmented with special purpose modules (many of which have fixpoint
> semantics) and the argumentation system for NM reasoning, so you have some
> minimal model stuff thrown in.  I would defy anyone, even including Keith
> Goolsbey who wrote the thing, to tell me what all of that *combined*
means.
> In my view, this is nothing to crow about.

I doubt that model theory is going to help us define ~meaning~ on the
semantic web.  Rather we might consider falling back on a more pragmatic
kind of theory.  A rdf graph means something to the process (perhaps even a
FOPL inference process) which interperts it and responds to it.  Embedded in
that description is the assumption that there is no such thing as ~meaning~
floating free in the ether, rather there is only ~meaning to ?Agent~.

Seth Russell

Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 17:42:00 UTC