The Experts below are selected from a list of 324 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Peter Simons - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Higher‐Order Quantification and Ontological Commitment
Dialectica, 2005Co-Authors: Peter SimonsAbstract:George Boolos's employment of plurals to give an Ontologically innocent interpretation of monadic higher-order quantification continues and extends a minority tradition in thinking about quantification and Ontological Commitment. An especially prominent member of that tradition is Stanislaw Lesniewski, and shall first draw attention to this work and its relation to that of Boolos. Secondly I shall stand up briefly for plurals as logically respectable expressions, while noting their limitations in offering Ontologically deflationary accounts of higher-order quantification. Thirdly I shall focus on the key idea of Ontological Commitment and investigate its connection with the idea of truth-making. Fourthly I shall consider how different interpretations of quantification may sideline Boolos's work, but finally I shall largely support his analysis of quantification involving nominal expressions, while arguing, in the spirit of Arthur Prior, that non-nominal quantification is non-committing.
-
higher order quantification and Ontological Commitment
Dialectica, 2005Co-Authors: Peter SimonsAbstract:George Boolos's employment of plurals to give an Ontologically innocent interpretation of monadic higher-order quantification continues and extends a minority tradition in thinking about quantification and Ontological Commitment. An especially prominent member of that tradition is Stanislaw Lesniewski, and shall first draw attention to this work and its relation to that of Boolos. Secondly I shall stand up briefly for plurals as logically respectable expressions, while noting their limitations in offering Ontologically deflationary accounts of higher-order quantification. Thirdly I shall focus on the key idea of Ontological Commitment and investigate its connection with the idea of truth-making. Fourthly I shall consider how different interpretations of quantification may sideline Boolos's work, but finally I shall largely support his analysis of quantification involving nominal expressions, while arguing, in the spirit of Arthur Prior, that non-nominal quantification is non-committing.
Bradley Rettler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Erratum to: The General Truthmaker View of Ontological Commitment
Philosophical Studies, 2015Co-Authors: Bradley RettlerAbstract:Acknowledgments Thanks to Jon Jacobs, Dan Korman, Kate Ritchie, and audiences at the 2012 University of Texas, Biola, and Pacific APA conferences for providing comments on and objections to various early drafts, and to a referee for this journal whose excellent comments helped me improve the paper substantially. Special thanks to Tim Pawl, Mike Rea, Noel Saenz, and Alex Skiles for spending many hours talking through these ideas and commenting on early drafts. I revised this paper while I was supported by a grant from Templeton Religion Trust; the opinions expressed in this paper are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton Religion Trust.
-
The General Truthmaker View of Ontological Commitment
Philosophical Studies, 2015Co-Authors: Bradley RettlerAbstract:In this paper, I articulate and argue for a new truthmaker view of Ontological Commitment, which I call the “General Truthmaker View”: when one affirms a sentence, one is Ontologically committed to there being something (or some things) that makes (or make) true the proposition expressed by the sentence. This view comes apart from Quinean orthodoxy in that we are not Ontologically committed to the things over which we quantify, and it comes apart from extant truthmaker views of Ontological Commitment in that we are not Ontologically committed to the truthmakers of our sentences.
Geoff Georgi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A propositional semantics for substitutional quantification
Philosophical Studies, 2015Co-Authors: Geoff GeorgiAbstract:The standard truth-conditional semantics for substitutional quantification, due to Saul Kripke, does not specify what proposition is expressed by sentences containing the particular substitutional quantifier. In this paper, I propose an alternative semantics for substitutional quantification that does. The key to this semantics is identifying an appropriate propositional function to serve as the content of a bound occurrence of a formula containing a free substitutional variable. I apply this semantics to traditional philosophical reasons for interest in substitutional quantification, namely, theories of truth and Ontological Commitment.
Alun Preece - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Verifying Ontological Commitment in knowledge-based systems ☆
Knowledge Based Systems, 1999Co-Authors: Andrew Waterson, Alun PreeceAbstract:Abstract An ontology defines the terminology of a domain of knowledge: the concepts that constitute the domain, and the relationships between those concepts. In order for two or more knowledge-based systems to interoperate—for example, by exchanging knowledge, or collaborating as agents in a co-operative problem-solving process—they must commit to the definitions in a common ontology. Verifying such Commitment is therefore a prerequisite for reliable knowledge-based system interoperability. This article shows how existing knowledge base verification techniques can be applied to verify the Commitment of a knowledge-based system to a given ontology. The method takes account of the fact that an ontology will typically be expressed using a different knowledge representation language to the knowledge base, by incorporating translation into the verification procedure. While the representation languages used are specific to a particular project, their features are general and the method has broad applicability.
-
verifying Ontological Commitment in knowledge based systems
Knowledge Based Systems, 1999Co-Authors: Andrew Waterson, Alun PreeceAbstract:Abstract An ontology defines the terminology of a domain of knowledge: the concepts that constitute the domain, and the relationships between those concepts. In order for two or more knowledge-based systems to interoperate—for example, by exchanging knowledge, or collaborating as agents in a co-operative problem-solving process—they must commit to the definitions in a common ontology. Verifying such Commitment is therefore a prerequisite for reliable knowledge-based system interoperability. This article shows how existing knowledge base verification techniques can be applied to verify the Commitment of a knowledge-based system to a given ontology. The method takes account of the fact that an ontology will typically be expressed using a different knowledge representation language to the knowledge base, by incorporating translation into the verification procedure. While the representation languages used are specific to a particular project, their features are general and the method has broad applicability.
Christine Pelletier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ER (Workshops) - Ontological Commitment for Participative Simulation
Conceptual Modeling for New Information Systems Technologies, 2002Co-Authors: Jan Goossenaerts, Christine PelletierAbstract:This paper analyses the role of Ontological Commitment in structuring the requirements for the PSIM Environment. This environment aims to support (i) the sharing and the exchange of knowledge between the different actors involved in the design or redesign of a manufacturing enterprise; and (ii) the exchange of information between tools supporting enterprise analysis according to different perspectives (logistic, technologic and human). The techniques for piecemeal Ontological Commitment are related to two contributions from research on enterprise reference architectures: (i) the dimension of genericity of the ENV 40003 reference architecture and (ii) the relationships between lifecycles of enterprise entities as defined in GERAM. Two kinds of applications illustrate the Ontological Commitments: support for the interoperation and communication between applications; and the provision of task-specific interfaces to users working in an enterprise.
-
Ontological Commitment for participative simulation
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002Co-Authors: Jan Goossenaerts, Christine PelletierAbstract:This paper analyses the role of Ontological Commitment in structuring the requirements for the PSIM Environment. This environment aims to support (i) the sharing and the exchange of knowledge between the different actors involved in the design or redesign of a manufacturing enterprise; and (ii) the exchange of information between tools supporting enterprise analysis according to different perspectives (logistic, technologic and human). The techniques for piecemeal Ontological Commitment are related to two contributions from research on enterprise reference architectures: (i) the dimension of genericity of the ENV 40003 reference architecture and (ii) the relationships between lifecycles of enterprise entities as defined in GERAM. Two kinds of applications illustrate the Ontological Commitments: support for the interoperation and communication between applications; and the provision of task-specific interfaces to users working in an enterprise.
