Re: Roles, again

• Mail folder: SRKB Mail
• Next message: Patrick Cassidy: "More roles"
• Previous message: Pat Hayes: "Re: Roles, again"
• In-reply-to: Pat Hayes: "Re: Roles, again"
• Reply: Pat Hayes: "Re: Roles, again"

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 13:56:46 PDT
From: brayman@zuben.ca.boeing.com (Bill Brayman)
Message-id: <9509112056.AA00802@zuben.ca.boeing.com>
To: dwig1@village.ios.com, cg@cs.umn.edu, phayes@cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Roles, again
Cc: fritz@rodin.wustl.edu, cg@village.ios.com, cg@wugate.wustl.edu,
        guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it, srkb@cs.umbc.edu, carrara@cs.umbc.edu,
        giaretta@ipdunidx.unipd.it
Sender: owner-srkb@cs.umbc.edu
Precedence: bulk

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.

Regards,

Bill Brayman

*connect the following dots using exactly four straight lines:
...
...
...