Re: Roles, firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Brayman)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 13:56:46 PDT
From: email@example.com (Bill Brayman)
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Roles, again
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Pat hayes replies:
>What you are calling 'roles' here are simply the argument places of the
>relation, and your conceptual Jabberwockiness comes directly from trying to
>think of them as actual entities when they are, at best, only a kind of
>metasyntactic relationship between a relation and a sort.
Pat, time to break out of the 9 dots*. Meta (syntactic) to what? I for
one would like to see a logic system that covers "seller" or
"buyer" (for example) as more than a syntactic relationship. "Argument places" is a
closed-world-assumption kind of concept. I want a logic that allows me
to reason without having to thread down to what I think you experts
call the herbrand universe to determine the role of the arguments.
Bring the role definition to the top. That's how humans reason.
*connect the following dots using exactly four straight lines: