KIF Re: Re: Basic Terminology

["Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>]

Jon,

Yes, I agree (see the attached PDF). In the triptych [World, (Formal)
Semantics, Syntax] I prefer to demote somewhat the syntactic component and
emphasize the polarity [World <=> Semantics], with syntax being an
externalization needed for communication.

Sez' you: It's really just a formality! Sez' me: Forms are real too!

Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
To: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Cc: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>; "John F. Sowa"
<sowa@bestweb.net>; <suo-kif@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:24 PM
Subject: SUO: Re: Basic Terminology


>
> Robert E. Kent wrote:
> >
> > John et al,
> >
> > Attached is a PDF file giving a table
> > with the various syntactic and semantic
> > components of 1st order logic.
> >
> > Robert E. Kent
> > rekent@ontologos.org
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Robert,
>
> I only have a moment to write, but just for the sake
> of future reference and mutual undertanding, I would
> describe the "semantic" component of the scheme that
> you have given us as a case of a "formal semantics".
> I hate having to keep referring to intellectual or
> any other kind of history in this "eternal agora",
> but if you go back to Frege and to Peirce and work
> your way forward you will find that the struggle
> to attain a formal semantics was a hard-fought
> battle and well worth the effort, but that its
> results by no means cover everything that was
> regarded as the full "study of meaning" (SOM)
> at the time when this noble endeavor began.
> So the best that I can probably arrange to
> do within the scope of my own usage is to
> continue to use your word "semantics" with
> the constant attachment of the qualifying
> adjective "formal".  I plan to elaborate
> on the relationship between this kind of
> "formal and rational meaning" (FARM) and
> "substantial and empirical meaning" (SAEM),
> and whether this particular polarity ought,
> as a matter of actual fact, be contemplated
> as encompassing all of the sorts of meaning
> that there are, must be, or even might be.
> But this new order of discussion may need
> to be carried on elsewhere, perhaps.
>
> Many Regards,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Components of Logic - 1st Order.pdf