SUO: RE: 14 May 2002 -- IFF Model Theory Ontology 1.0, Request For Comment
Dear IFF team,
Jon prompts me to check out a couple of things.
See below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> Sent: 14 May 2002 05:44
> To: SUO
> Subject: SUO: 14 May 2002 -- IFF Model Theory Ontology 1.0,
> Request For
> Comment
>
>
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> IFF Team,
>
> Well, it's been a week and I haven't been able to
> think of anything more astute to say, so I will
> just record this comment for what its worth.
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Subj: IFF Model Theory Ontology 1.0, Request For Comment
> Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 17:20:48 -0400
> From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> To: Robert E Kent <rekent@ontologos.org>
> CC: Jim Farrugia <jim@spatial.maine.edu>,
> Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>
>
> Robert, Jim, Leo,
>
> Re:
>
> | Apart from using set theory
MW: Using set theory is one thing, but do you support different sorts
of set theory. In particular, do you support non-well founded sets.
> | or category theory,
> | model theory is completely agnostic about the
> | kinds of things that exist.
>
> This is just a thing to think about long-term.
> I hail from a tradition in category theory
> that is suspicious of elements -- this is
> not unrelated to Peirce's criticism of
> the "doctrine of individuals" and the
> general critique of "atomism".
>
> So when people, and it's not just you, of course, make these
> sorts claims
> about ontological agnosticism or ontological neutrality, on
> the strength
> of having any kinds of "individuals" in the universe of the model, but
> maintain as a tenet of their formal superstructure a firm distinction
> between type/token, predicate/subject, or whatever the local
> name is --
> well, that just rankles my sensitivities.
MW: In particular I stand here as one who has never been able to discern
any difference between type and predicate. Predicates just seem to be
some types that are "fixed" (in FOL), and being a predicate very much a
matter of choice. (always assuming I have Jon's drift right)
> Do you have any sense
> of what I mean here?
>
> This is so dicey that I'll leave it off-list for the time being.
>
> And by the way -- Congratulations!
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>