John and Leo,  (01)
JB
> Is there anything in Computational Semantics or Computational
> Metaphysics that informs ontology?  (02) 
Leo
> Really ontology (and ontological engineering) should be represented
> in logic, with the links and containers being secondary artifacts
> that themselves should be rooted in logic.  (03) 
I agree that the goal of representing ontology in logic or in
any computable form is an important discipline. Without that
discipline, the discussion can degenerate into a vague mush.  (04)
But just the Aristotelian style of logic is a major step up
from vague discussion. In fact, if you look at published
ontologies in OWL, very few say anything that could not be
expressed (more readably) in Aristotle's four sentence patterns:  (05)
 A: Every A is B.
 I: Some A is B.
 E: No A is B.
 O: Some A is not B.  (06)
But Whitehead (who certainly knew logic) made the point that before
you can write axioms in any version of logic, you need a preliminary 
analysis to determine the relations you need to state your axioms.  (07)
John  (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J  (09)