Issue 25 in information-artifact-ontology: Definitions for specifically/generically denotes don't make sense to Bjoern

[codesite...@google.com]

Status: New
Owner: alanruttenberg
Labels: Feature

New issue 25 by alanruttenberg: Definitions for specifically/generically
denotes don't make sense to Bjoern
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=25

Fix

--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings

[codesite...@google.com]

Comment #1 on issue 25 by bpet...@liai.org: Definitions for

specifically/generically denotes don't make sense to Bjoern
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=25

This means: I would really like to have a definition in English, and am
having
trouble reading what looks like ad-hoc syntax to me (see below).
Specifically it is
unclear to me how 'is about' would look like in that same syntax.

c specifically denotes r =def
r is a portion of reality
& c is a particular quality
& c depends specifically on some independent continuant b
& b acquired c as the result of the achievement of an objective to enable
pointing to
r repeatedly.

What is a 'portion of reality'? An entity?
What is 'particular' about c? An instance of quality ?
What is 'enable repeated pointing'?

[codesite...@google.com]

Updates:
Status: Done

Comment #2 on issue 25 by alanruttenberg: Definitions for

specifically/generically denotes don't make sense to Bjoern
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=25

See
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/wiki/specifically_denotes
and
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/wiki/generically_denotes

[codesite...@google.com]

Updates:
Status: Started

Comment #3 on issue 25 by bjoern.peters: Definitions for

specifically/generically denotes don't make sense to Bjoern
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=25

Thanks for the detailed writeup; I believe I understand the intended
definitions well.

However: currently both relations are children of 'is about' with the domain
'information content entity'. That does not seem to mash with the
explanations you
gave (specifically denotes seems to have domain quality, not sure about
generically
denotes).

Also, the relationship to 'is about' is still unclear to me. Are there
information
content entities that are about somthing which they do not denote? Examples
would
help for where there is no 'denotes' relationship.

Thanks again!

[codesite...@google.com]

Comment #4 on issue 25 by alanruttenberg: Definitions for

specifically/generically denotes don't make sense to Bjoern
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=25

I've added a separate issue for the domain question, which I noticed at the
same time you did. On the
is_about question, we have at least one more relation 'is quality
measurement of', which is not currently a
subproperty of denotation - perhaps it should be. However there are a
number of other types of relationships
between information artifacts and things which are based on ultimately
based on denotation, but are not
themselves as direct as that. Some examples for review

a) relation of the name of a class to the members of the class

b) Words used in analogy, simile, metaphor, etc.

c) Literary forms such as allusion and satire

Pat Hayes, recent email, says:

A sign on a door says "Emergency exit. Alarm will sound." and we all know
that this refers to the door to which
the sign is attached. A strict semanticist could say, the sign implicitly
denotes the door, and we know this by a
social convention about warning signs. But that would be a stretch. Another
related example which I love is
highway warning signs in New Mexico which say "Gusty winds may exist" which
on the face of it reads like a
cautious philosophical observation, but it obviously intended to
mean "here, near this sign; and now, when
you are reading it." There are many examples of this kind of co-location
indexicality of reference (shouting
'fire' in a crowded theatre is another) but they all still involve
denotation, even though part of the 'sign' is
missing, or implicit from the context.

[codesite...@google.com]

Comment #5 on issue 25 by bjoern.peters: Definitions for

specifically/generically denotes don't make sense to Bjoern
http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=25

Following this thread, there was an IAO call with Barry, Alan and myself in
which I
thought there was agreement to remove 'specifically denotes', and instead
use
'denotes' only, which will have the meaning that 'generically denotes' has
now.

To deal with qualities that specifically denote, we would instead use that
the
quality is a concretization of' an ICE that denotes.

If I recall this correctly, can we make the changes in the file? In
addition there is
a 'materially denotes' relation in the file, without any metadata. Can that
be
removed as well?

- Bjoern