canonical ordering (Re: Converses?)firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Brayman)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:31:15 -0800
From: email@example.com (Bill Brayman)
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: canonical ordering (Re: Converses?)
> >>From Pat Hayes:
> >>This raises another issue, however. Its all very well to say that only one
> >>ordering needs to be kept and not the converses, but how is it specified
> >>what the canonical ordering IS?
> >The system has to pick one. It doesn't particularly matter which one;
> >then the other converses can be defined in terms of it.
> >(Pat again)
> Yes of course, but thats not the problem, which is how does it represent to
> itself which is the one it has picked. Heres this relation:
> between four people (a speaker, an addresee and an audience of two). Which
> is which?
why do I feel like I am walking into a trap when I raise the typing issue again...but anyway
in ordinary language we often mark sentence components to indicate the role the element is playing such as(using Pat's example):
So, to suggest a line of reasoning for Pat's question, his relation C(x,y,z,u) really is a constellation of relations that serve to define argument position. Then, a KR language must have a way to express the composite. I know this can be flattened into raw FOL syntax. But, I believe there is some kind of inferencing shortcut involved when using "roles" to define argument positions related to the original issue of developing hierarchies on relations. By the way, I don't mean to introduce foreign terminology, this is essentially the bipartite graphing approach (links between boxes and circles) of conceptual graphs.
PS I assume that of 99.9% of audience is on one of the three mail lists, so I dropped the individual addresses.