SUO: Re: Missing Ingredients
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
MI. Note 6
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Murray, Rich, Tom, et alea,
Let me go back to how I previously framed the
question of "semantic inter-operability" (SIO),
and try to clarify what I was talking about.
Appending an auto-quotation ("beep beep"):
JA: | Let us try to approach the question
| of "semantic inter-operability" (SIO)
| by way of the following sub-questions:
|
| 1. What is the "meaning" of a "set of sentences" (SOS)?
|
| 2. What is the "meaning" of a "table of tuples" (TOT)?
|
| 3. How shall we compare the "meanings" of these two?
By "set of sentences" (SOS) I meant what is formally called a "theory".
To avoid the undue semantic charges of 'Crying "Wolf!"', let us change
that to "collection of sentences" (COS), and let us further appreciate
the radically more circumscribed circumstance that, in the interest of
practical computational purposes, we will very promptly want to settle
on finite sets of sentences as the chief concept of our inquiries here.
Since the name "list of sentences" (LOS) might be interpreted to imply
an unintended ordering among the sentences, I'm toying with the notion
of calling a finite set of sentences a "table of sentences" (TOS), and
this will make sense if we observe that unkeyed tables are the default.
Clarity is such a chore that I will need to take a break for lunch now,
but I can leave you with the following metalink to a standard textbook,
Chang and Keisler's 'Model Theory', on the subject that we just opened:
MOD. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg04736.html
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o