Re: second-order aint reflection

From: Dieter Fensel (
Date: 10/16/00

At 10:56 AM 10/16/00 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>Hi Deiter, thanks for the reply. One quick comment:
>>.... Actually we seem to agree in
>>the message of the paragraph. Many frameworks and applications
>>in knowledge engineering ask for a second-order "flavour" in
>>a sense that one has predicates over predicates (i.e., meta
>>classes). ....
>But the point of my message was to urge that predicates over predicates, 
>ie second-order predicates -  are NOT meta classes, at least as 'meta' is 
>understood in philosophical  logic, where it refers to descriptions of 
>syntax rather than descriptions of predicates. Maybe this terminology has 
>changed, or is used differently in some other community?
>Pat Hayes

Hi Pat,

Finally, I got your point. I do not think the terminology used by my 
community is really different, it is just a bit more
sloppy. I think we still agree on the message of the paragraph that we 
should look for the service of meta-classes
in OIL without being afraid to need second-order logic (because as you 
pointed out this can be handled within
a first-order framework).



Dieter Fensel
Division of Mathematics & Computer Science,
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, NL
The Netherlands
Room number U3.25.
Tel. (mobil): +31-(0)6-51850619,
Fax and Answering machine: +31-(0)20-872 27 22
Privat: Liendenhof 64, NL-1108 HB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tel.: +31-(0)20-365 52 60.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST