Re: SUO: Re: IFF Model Theory Ontology 1.0, Request For Comment
On 5/14/02 14:21, "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org> wrote:
Hi, Robert...
>> So, given the right syntax and semantic support from a logic (which the
>> Common Logic standard proposal happens to provide - http://cl.tamu.edu)
>> there is no problem whatsoever saying:
>>
>> Red(ColorOfRobertsRedFerrari)
>>
>> Color(Red)
>>
>> or even
>>
>> Property(Property)
>
> Yes, that is a nice syntax. But you still need a good semantics. I presume
> the CL doc <http://cl.tamu.edu/discuss/cl-syntax-semantics.pdf>
> provides a set-theoretic semantics (I have not been able to read it as of
> yet, since I get a corrupted file when I try.)
Yes, It does. Funny that you can't read it. Send mail to Menzel (I will cc
him on this note) and see if you can't get a version you can read.
> But we want to define an IFF
> Common Logic portal that will provide an (alternate, if you will)
> category-theoretic semantics. And again one that meshes well with the
> "lattice of theories" approach.
Sounds good. As previously confessed, I haven't read the IFF stuff and for
that I'm truly guilty. Just so all of this will play together nicely is all
I care about. I'll take your word if you take mine :-D
.bill
--
Bill Andersen
Chief Scientist, Ontology Works
1132 Annapolis Road, Suite 104
Odenton, Maryland, 21113
Mobile: 443-858-6444
Office: 410-674-7600
Web: http://www.ontologyworks.com