RE: [ontac-forum] Neutrality Principle

[richard.murphy@xxxxxxx]

Barry, Pat & All:

What Cory's explaining in terms of his
modeling challenge in Semantic Core has been formalized in the theory of
information flow. Information flow, or channel theory provides a formal
definition of context - there called classification and also known as Chu
Spaces - as " A classification A = <
A, SA,
|=A> consists
of a set A of objects to be classified called tokens of A, a set SA
of  objects used to classify the tokens, called the types of A, and
a binary relation |= between A and SA
that tells one which tokens are classified as being of which types. "
 See Barwise and Seligman. 

Classifications are more than arbitrary,
they're valuable applications of John Sowa's principle of modularity in
the UF.

Best wishes,

Rick

office: 202-501-9199
cell: 202-557-1604

"Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

11/28/2005 10:05 AM

Please respond to
"ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [ontac-forum] Neutrality Principle

At 02:22 PM 11/28/2005, you wrote:
>This is the way I have started to approach context; Contextual statements
>can be made, for example, OWL-Full by allowing statements about statements.
>Given a class of context and an instance "car" we would have
statements
>about "steering wheel".  "steering wheel"
and associated axioms are "in the
>context of" "car" (none exclusively).  The same
relation would hold for
>statements in the context of "Cyc" (Or some Cyc microtheory).
 A computation
>done outside of the context of Cyc would then not include those statements.
>In the problems I was facing in merging forms of _expression_ for
>architectures as well as for expressing the often conflicting architectures
>them selves (and reasoning about them), context seems necessary.  It
also
>seems necessary for extremely common concepts.

For example?

>  It would also seem a way to
>get around the inevitable "single truth" conflicts and arguments
that arise
>when all things are absolutely true all the time.

My suspicion is that it is a too easy way (analogous to the 
teenager's cry "Well, it's true for ME").

BS 


 
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (01)