Re: SUO: RE: RE: Re: Missing Ingredients
Request for clarification: what are the
fearful/never-to-be-sufficiently-damned 'nominalistic patterns of thought'?
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Angus" <chris.angus@btinternet.com>
To: "Murray Altheim" <m.altheim@open.ac.uk>; "Joshua Allen"
<joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Richard Cooper" <rich@valutech.com>; "Tom Johnston"
<tjohnston@acm.org>; "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@att.net>; "SUO"
<standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 05:32
Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: Re: Missing Ingredients
MW:> Not to head back into the semiotic mire, but it's also been shown that
> it's very difficult to have shared meanings, even when there are
> "formal" vocabularies available, as people will interpret definitions
> differently based on their education, culture, etc. But I wasn't going
> there. It is an issue. KIF and SUO don't avoid nominalistic patterns
> of thought, they tend to reinforce them.