Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 15

Re: C.S. Peirce, Spencer Brown, and Me • 11
Re: Ontolog ForumMichael DeBellis

I’ve just started taking Peirce seriously in the last year or so and some of his more complex ideas still aren’t completely clear to me but here goes:  Has anyone come up with an OWL upper model (i.e., something like the upper models in Cyc and BFO) based on Peirce’s work?  I’ve come to appreciate Peirce as a major figure in the history of logic, information theory, semiotics, etc. but I’ve never quite been able to map his ideas into a logical model in OWL.  I’m not sure if this is because trying to do so isn’t consistent with what Peirce is trying to do or just that I still haven’t grasped his ideas completely.  Or perhaps the subset of FOL that OWL supports isn’t powerful enough to map to Peirce.  At an initial reading it seems like there should be a good fit because (at least as I understand it) one of Peirce’s core ideas of symbols (as opposed to icons or indexes) seems like a perfect fit to the triple model (Subject Predicate Object) that is the foundation (RDF/RDFS) for OWL.  Would like to know your opinions on this.

Dear Michael,

Google still reminds me I spent some time on the RDF-Logic List back around the turn of the millennium (January 2001).  I was especially intrigued by the prospect of using triples as a fundamental data structure.  Now the (subject, verb, object) triples of RDF and the (object, sign, interpretant) triples of Peirce’s semiotics are ostensibly different data types in their concrete descriptions but that may not obstruct integration too much if the triples are defined abstractly enough and implemented polymorphically enough.  As far as I can remember, though, the concrete connotations tended to get in the way of cross-cultural or trans-silo communication at that time.

That is not, however, the largest obstacle to harmonizing the logic of Peirce with the ways of FOL as she is spoke today.  I’ll take that up when I next get a chance …



cc: CyberneticsLaws of FormOntolog ForumStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, Analogy, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Cybernetics, Deduction, Differential Logic, Duality, Form, Graph Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Time, Topology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 15

  1. Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.