SUO: Re: Critique Of Non-Functional Reason
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
| A. Automated Reasoning (AR)
|
| The standard will be suitable for automated logical inference
| to support knowledge-based reasoning applications.
|
| B. Inter-Operability (IO)
|
| The standard will provide a basis for achieving Inter-Operability
| among various software and database applications.
Summary Of The Thread Up To This Point (cont.)
At this point in Quine's text I spied what looked like an opportunity
to make a slightly far-fetched but earnestly desired connection between
Purpose A and Purpose B, so "I jumped on it like a duck on a june bug" --
to use an old Texican expression -- and I tried to make the most of it.
I reached the point of contemplating what I think is a real-world
model-theoretic relationship between a database DB and a theory Q
that it supports, in this case, between the MapQuest database and
the single theoretical statement q from Quine's example that says:
"If Perth is 400 miles from Omaha then Perth is in America".
It strikes me that the relation DB |= Q, if it stands up under examination,
may be a clue as to how we can go about connecting Purpose A and Purpose B,
so I will try to continue testing the potential of this connection as I go.
Up to this point I have tried to give the beginning underpinnings
of Quine's text as careful a reading as I possibly could, in part
because it exemplifies a way of speaking and thinking about logic
that is regarded as absolutely standard in some circles I know of.
An ontology standard that fails to accommodate its sensibilities
in some way or another is bound to meet with withering criticism
when and ever if it hits the streets.
But accommodation is not the same thing as capitulation.
Though I made some labored effort to learn it, this way
of speaking and thinking is not my true native language.
I cannot see the symbol "=>" without thinking, and even
blurting out "implies", which is a faux pas of the very
gauchest variety in the polite circles that I mentioned.
For now, let my excuse be that it's a standard abuse of
language in mathematics, where they care far less about
such nice distinctions, and even seem to get by somehow,
none the worse for wear or even lack of awareness of it.
Understanding how this is possible will be my next task.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤