SUO: Re: What's Upper?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
richardm@tinwisle.com wrote:
>
> At the risk of putting my neck in the noose, it seems to me that this issue
> of terminology to use in talking about the effort before us is precisely the
> issue of "upper" ontology that is our charter to resolve in some standard way.
> What is the difference between a "linguistic thingie" and an "entity" and why
> does it make any difference if John S. wants to use the term "predicate" in a
> way that Chris M. does not find appropriate. If we can not find a way to make
> different approaches to the terminology of ontological work coexist and
> interoperate then we will never be able to do more than create just
> another example of somebody else's ontology.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
Richard,
I think that it's more about the definition of "standard"
than about the direction of "up", but never mind that now.
Most of these types of issues could be worked out in a fairly standard way,
and have already been worked out in most of the disciplines that have real
work to do and are interested mostly in getting on with it.
A standard practice in math and computer science has been to use words and phrases
that sound like they are talking about objects to talk about objects, whether they
be ordinary or formal objects, and to use words and phrases that sound like they
are talking about signs, sentences, and syntactic things to talk about signs,
sentences, and syntactic things.
In most cases, the historical ambiguities can be resolved by using
one or two extra words at most. It is usually convenient to use
the plain stem of a word complex for the object thing, adding
an adjective up front or a substantive at the end to talk
about the corresponding syntactic thing.
For example:
Object Sign
----------+----------------
Constant Constant Name
Function Function Name
Predicate Predicate Name
Property Property Name
Variable Varible Name
----------+----------------
Some people prefer a usage like "Constant" for the object and
"Logical Constant" for the sign. That seems to work okay, too.
NB. "Predicate Symbol" tends to be read by many people as
"Predicate Letter", which is an abstract logical variable.
The nice thing about this strategy is that the individual thinker
is not required to fill all the cells of the above Table, that is,
to make any ontological commitments that might violate his or her
conscience, simply by acknowledging that other people regard them
as having content.
These simple rules are so easy to follow that I have even relinquished
my dyed-in-the-wool Peircean scruples on many accounts simply for the
sake of the post-estabilshed harmony to which they ably contribute.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o