SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, and RDF

["John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>]

Jack,

I apologize for any slights or slurs I may have cast.
My only excuse is that I have spent 40 years working
with people on subjects for which logic is fundamental
to everything they do.  Yet they don't take the time
to read a single book on the subject.  I am totally
frustrated with such behavior.  And that frustration
sometimes boils up into my notes to other people.

I also apologize for not looking at the references
you sent because I was in the middle of a hot argument
with Murray on related issues.  But I went back to examine
your diagram, and I think that it would be an excellent
example to translate to both CGs and predicate calculus.

The attached file, JSixPack.jpg, is the topic map by
itself without the surrounding screen shot.  But before
translating it or anything else to any version of logic,
I always ask people to give me a clear statement in
English of what they intend the diagram to mean.

Could you please give me a list of Enlish sentences
that paraphrase the links of that diagram.  I will reply
with a translation of each sentence to both a conceptual
graph and the corresponding formula in predicate calculus.

And on the following point, I think we completely agree:

 > Then, the thrust of what I was trying to say when I started
 > this rukus in the first place is that I see (fairly clearly,
 > mind you) some commonalities (which you and others don't
 > seem to see) in the nature of what CGs, topic maps, Cyc's
 > microtheories, and a few other notions are trying to do.
 > I thought, and still think, that there is room for some
 > approach to a synthesis. I like that idea. Your mileage may vary.

On various occasions, I have spoken with people working on
topic maps, and we all agreed that it would be good to develop
tools and techniques for relating them to other versions of
logic.  I hope that we can succeed in defining a mapping that
will enable us to reuse and build on each other's tools.

John