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