Re: universal languages

>
>Some of the participants in a the discussion assume that
>intensionality = quotation. It's true that quotation is one way to
>implement intensionality, but it's not the only way. The other is
>just to use possible-world semantics. This tends to be more compact
>but lets in a few too many inferences.
Actually quotation ISNT one way to implement intensionality. You 
can't (reasonably) interpret believes, for example, as a predicate on 
quoted expressions, ie interpret
Fred believes Bush isnt the president
as having the logical form:
(Believes Fred "Bush isnt the president")
This is tempting, but it doesnt work, for technical reasons which 
were elaborated by Montague and which I confess I can no longer 
remember the details of. But believe me, you can't.
<snip>
> > What exactly is the role RDF plays in all this?
>
> It's a little teeny formal system based on URIs and XML:
> two place predicates only, conjunctions and existentials but no
> negation, disjunction, universals, etc.
>
>The problem is that RDF is sometimes the small language we plan to
>use, and other times it's just the medium in which the actual language
>is going to be written. What's driving me a little crazy is that its
>advocates switch back and forth between these two positions. When its
>inadequacies as a language are pointed out, the RDFites say, "We can
>implement any language we like." But then the next day they're using
>RDF as the actual language again.
Right on! It's driving me crazy too.
>Let me repeat the problem: If RDF is just a mechanism for describing
>the syntax of some other language, then it's irrelevant. If it is the
>actual language, then it's inadequate.
:-)
Pat Hayes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501			(850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 23:27:40 UTC

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /