[ontolog-forum] skill of definition

ontolog-forum

[ontolog-forum] skill of definition - cont-ed

from [FERENC KOVACS] [Permanent Link][Original]

To:	ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From:	FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	2009年2月16日 19:10:48 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id:	<639272.46429.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear John at all,

Well, whatever appears in space-time exists, when it disappears it cease to exist. ( In a natural language when and where often used interchangeably.)

I will have to come back to this point later, now I must log off..

Back again.

The crucial problem is the meaning of the meaning. semantics is supposed to deal with and define it, but you snatched it from linguists (who have not been able to define meaning properly anyway), but to derive meaning from syntax parsing is a nonsense

Why? because the meaning of any word is inclusive of its context. Now to define context we use approximation, first we take one of the several faces of a concept (like from and content, extension and intension, quantity and quality - and what has left been out so far - generic and specific). Second, we use a definition, which should be recursively reducible to object, propert or relation, then we can check out what the participants knwo abput the subject, any connotatins and some twenty other factors that are or may be appended to the knowledge of a word. (can list you later). Now the more context is visible and perceivable in the situation than less verbal supplement is required for identification of anything spoken about. And vice versa.

Semantic analysis involves the transformation of parts of speech, sentence patterns, etc. semantically equivalent variations that finally all can be reduced to semantic primitives.

Subject to the knowledge of the people involved aynthing said or written will be regarded and assessede as generic or specific and understanding comes when a total picture is gathered, and no knowledge is useful (cannot be acted upon) , unless it is specific

Any more questions?.

I'm definitely in favor of using logic for many purposes.
But note that stating the criteria in any version of logic
(even fuzzy logic) would do *nothing* to help us resolve
any of these questions.

Informal logic is the way out where I could show the menatl operations of conceptualisation adn theri relations. That model cab easily sort out the problems that you are stucjk with in producing ontologies. Just a sideline why do you want tzo merge thinbgs instead iontegrating them? Are you aware of the conditions of integration? (of concepts)

With respect and willingness to help

Frank .

Ferenc Kovacs

alias Frank

Genezistan

"Starting all over"

+44 7770654068 (Vodafone)

www.firkasz.com and http://translationjournal.net/journal/46meaning.htm http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2003546&l=1e704&id=1107563373

5 St. Mary's Place

Newbury, Berkshire

RG14 1EG

U.K.