[topicmapmail] Re: mulitilingual thesaurus and ontologies

[Bernard Vatant]

[John Sowa]

> It is true that any particular version of logic must be expressed
> in some language, such as predicate calculus, CGs, KIF, Aristotelian
> syllogisms, or even topic maps -- all of them are different notations
> for some subset of the fundamental principles of logic.
>
> But logic itself is a standard that is language independent.  It is
> the prerequisite for any language that purports to communicate
> anything about the world or about any viewpoint about the world or
> about any language of any kind.
>
> That is why I say that if you want to use topic maps to communicate
> different viewpoints about the world or about signs, your first
> obligation is to determine their logical foundation.
>
> Bottom line:  Either topic maps are a notation for some subset
> of logic, or they are a meaningless notation.

John

Without abusing of your time, I think this core debate has to be pushed into TM community,
and I cc this message to the list.
I had last year basically the same kind of answer in a similar debate with Pat Hayes ...
I think the best way to convince TM people of your point is indeed someone really starting
working on some TM logical model.
The problem is that we have so far in TM community, nobody that I know with enough
background in formal logic to be able to set the kind of model you seem to be asking for
before even starting to discuss about it. If I am wrong, please volunteers move one step
forward. There is indeed an ongoing work on a "graph model". See TMPM4 at
www.topicmaps.net. But I guess you won't call that a logical foundation, will you?

And the other way round, academic people who have a strong background in logic have so far
not shown any real interest in topic maps, AFAIK I heard no one saying: "Hey folks, I've
put together some formal model for TM. Does it fit your needs?"

So I feel like going to the garage because I have some trouble with fine-tuning my car
engine, and hear the chief mechanic say: "Sorry. I don't understand what your problem is.
Please review your engine concept and come back after that". I would answer : "Hey, but
*you* are the engine expert! Can't you help me about it?" And he would answer : "No. Your
engine concept is ill-defined. Set a good model, without which I can't even speak about
your problem".

See what I mean?

It's true that there are so many attempts in the "standards" community, in so many
languages and formats, that certainly reinvent many existing wheels. But I figure the role
of academics for that matter could be more to help and provide relevant tools, than sort
of despising those efforts, waiting for them to come to the point they are worth
discussing, or die out ...

Just thoughts ...

Bernard