Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 182, Issue 2, pp 269–295 | Cite as

Knowledge representation, the World Wide Web, and the evolution of logic

  • Christopher Menzel
Article

Abstract

It is almost universally acknowledged that first-order logic (FOL), with its clean, well-understood syntax and semantics, allows for the clear expression of philosophical arguments and ideas. Indeed, an argument or philosophical theory rendered in FOL is perhaps the cleanest example there is of “representing philosophy”. A number of prominent syntactic and semantic properties of FOL reflect metaphysical presuppositions that stem from its Fregean origins, particularly the idea of an inviolable divide between concept and object. These presuppositions, taken at face value, reflect a significant metaphysical viewpoint, one that can in fact hinder or prejudice the representation of philosophical ideas and arguments. Philosophers have of course noticed this and have, accordingly, sought to alter or extend traditional FOL in novel ways to reflect a more flexible and egalitarian metaphysical standpoint. The purpose of this paper, however, is to document and discuss how similar “adaptations” to FOL—culminating in a standardized framework known as Common Logic—have evolved out of the more practical and applied encounter of FOL with the problem of representing, sharing, and reasoning upon information on World Wide Web.

Keywords

Common logic Semantic web Knowledge representation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aczel P. (1983) Non-well-founded sets. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Baader F., Calvanese D., McGuinness D., Narde D., Patel Schneider P. (eds) (2003) The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Barwise J., Moss L. (1996) Vicious circles: On the mathematics of non-wellfounded phenomena. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bealer G. (1982) Quality and concept. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Brachman R., Schmolze J. (1985) An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science 9: 171–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chierchia G., Turner R. (1988) Semantics and property theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 261–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Genesereth, M. (1998). Knowledge interchange format. Draft proposed American National Standard (dpANS), NCITS.T2/98-004. Retrieved January 9, 2009 from http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html.
  8. Grandy R. E. (1976) Anadic logic and English. Synthese 32: 395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gruber, T. R. (1992). Ontolingua: A mechanism to support portable ontologies. Technical Report KSL 91-66. Stanford University, Knowledge Systems Laboratory.Google Scholar
  10. Hayes, P. (2003). RDF semantics. W3C Technical Report. Retrieved January 15, 2009 from the W3C web site: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt.
  11. ISO. (2007). Information technology—Common Logic (CL): A framework for a family of logic-based languages. International Standard ISO/IEC 24707, 1st edn., 2007-10-01. Retrieved January 9, 2009 from the ISO web site: http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c039175_ISO_IEC_24707_2007(E).zip.
  12. Kenny A. (1963) Action emotion and will. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Lenat D., Guha R. V. (1991) The evolution of CycL, the Cyc representation language. ACM SIGART Bulletin 2: 84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindström P. (1969) On extensions of elementary logic. Theoria 35: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacGregor, R., & Bates, R. (1987). The LOOM knowledge representation language. Technical Report ISI/RS-87-188. USC/Information Sciences Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Menzel, C. (1993). The proper treatment of predication in fine-grained intensional logic. In J. E. Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives (Vol. 7, pp. 61–87). Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. Menzel, C., & Hayes, P. (2003). SCL: A logic standard for semantic integration. In A. Doan, A. Halevey, & N. Noy (Eds.), CEUR workshop proceedings: Semantic integration (Vol. 82). Available online at http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-82.
  18. Patel-Scheider, P., McGuinness, D., Brachman, R., & Resnick, L. (1991). The CLASSIC knowledge representation system: Guiding principles and implementation rationale. ACM SIGART Bulletin, 2, 108–113.Google Scholar
  19. Shapiro, S. C. (2000). SNePS: A logic for natural language understanding and commonsense reasoning. In L. M. Iwanska & S. C. Shapiro (Eds.), Natural language processing and knowledge representation: Language for knowledge and knowledge for language. Menlo Park, CA/Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sowa J. F. (1984) Conceptual structures: Information processing in mind and machine. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. W3C. (1995). RFC: 1808: Relative uniform resource locators (RFC 1808). Retrieved January 15, 2009 from the W3C web site: http://www.w3.org/Addressing/rfc1808.txt.
  22. W3C. (2005). RFC 3986: Uniform resource identifier (URI): Generic syntax. Retrieved January 15, 2009 from the W3C web site: http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations