Re: SUO: On the supreme supertype
>Aldo Gangemi wrote:
>> >On further thought, I'd like to suggest a different possible name for the
>> >supreme supertype, other than "thing" or "entity" which seem to be
>> >traditional...
>> >
>> >Perhaps a better word for the supreme supertype could be
>>"referent", meaning
>> >that which can be referenced.
>> >
>> >I'm thinking along the following lines: Whatever cannot be
>>referenced cannot
>> >be described and hence cannot be categorized or placed in an ontology. Of
>> >that which cannot be referenced, we must be silent...
for the sake of correct referencing ;-):
I did NOT write the above quoted, but Philip did it. I commented that
'referent'
is not appropriate for its theory-ladenness in philosophy and
generally for the reason indicated by John (Sowa) in another reply.
>This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. In mathematics, at least,
>there are lots of things that can't be referenced but about which we
>are not silent. For instance, any property that we prove holds of all
>real numbers says something about all the reals, even those for which
>we could never have sort any procedure that would enable us to pick
>them out and refer to them explicitly.
I agree
>If you respond that such numbers are still, in some abstract sense,
>capable of being referenced, then it seems to me that your notion of
>"referent" has lost any bite that distinguishes it from "thing" and
>"entity".
I only suggested that 'reference' (NOT 'referent') would be a
possible choice: for example it is used in semiotics for any sign you
can talk about. But you are right: one or another, that's not all
that different.
All the best
Aldo
--
*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*
Aldo Gangemi
Ontology and Conceptual Modeling Group
ITBM-CNR (National Research Council)
Viale Marx 15, 00137
Roma Italy
+3906.86090249
mailto://gangemi@saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it
http://saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it