Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
Yang Yun wrote:
> - Received 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
>
> - I vote YES that this group should commence work on IFF Foundation
> Ontology.
>
> Comments:
>
> Category theory is the dominant underpinning to formal semantics
> over the past 30 years.
I think that is inaccurate, at least if you are using the term "formal
semantics" in the way that it is used among linguists, logicians, and
philosophers. The dominant underpinning of formal semantics since it
was invented has been, and, I believe, remains, standard set theory.
Category theory -- which, I agree, is elegant and powerful, and can also
serve as a foundation for formal semantics -- is not even mentioned in
standard introductory texts in logic or formal linguistic semantics, and
is used spottily at best -- when a category theoretic representation
proves particularly vivid -- in more advanced texts on formal model
theory like Chang & Keisler and Hodges.
Me, I don't care. I'm all for using whatever framework is most powerful
and appropriate. But can you, or anyone, provide us with one concrete
example of a shortcoming in the traditional framework of first-order
syntax, proof theory, and model theory that would necessitate moving to
a framework as abstract and (to most) unfamiliar as category theory?
-chris
--
Christopher Menzel # web: philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
Philosophy, Texas A&M University # net: chris.menzel@tamu.edu
College Station, TX 77843-4237 # vox: (979) 845-8764