John, in the thread on "language games and Semantic Domains", you mentioned the CSP "cycle of pragmatism".  I googled up the following image from your website re the same topic and squeezed it down to fit this format as below:

Was that actually CSP’s nomenclature, or have you translated it into modern email vocabulary?

In my own work on discovery systems, I used the following as a domain independent explanation of the discovery process:

I found that kind of generic process described by several authors on the web, and in history of science materials.  So I decided to start with that as the communicable basis for my specialized discovery system and put a lot of work in to making it fit the requirements of corpus analysis using databases.  

The next figure showed the specialized model for databased corpus analysis using my methods:

Is there an ontological transformation between your CSP graph and my corpus analysis cycle (see above figures)? 

Maybe this kind of Ontology to Ontology transformation would be a useful example for discussion on the lists.  It includes more than just one kind of “repair” to discuss when we talk about ontology repair, ontology evolution, etc.  

For example, I chose the usual four generic processes of experimenting, classifying, observing and theorizing simply because the logicians have called for them since the advent of science.  

The CSP decomposition into theory, predictions, world and knowledge soup seems to be an orthogonal slice through the same space, more focused on theory to the exclusion of the other three processes.  It also seems more flow oriented, as per the arcs (see figure at top) between pairs of generic processes.  

How is Perice’s model different, or improved, or otherwise distinct from the generic discovery model?

Curiously,

-Rich

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa-pmV1UhJe4grR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:10 PM
To: cg-ndqbGWLCXyQvU1jxblBdo2D2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [CG:] Re: Language Games and Semantic Domains

Gary and Janet,

There is an enormous number of possible topics to discuss. I didn't

want to get into a detailed history of all of logic and philosophy.

Therefore, it's best to use terminology that avoids distractions

from the main thread.

<snipped to the other threads/>