Don't let all the fancy words hold you back. This paper is worth at least
reading the Introduction.
Jack
>----- Original Message -----
>From: marty <marty@univ-perp.fr>
>To: <PORT-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU>
>Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 8:52 AM
>Subject: Re: [PORT-L] Goguen's Semiotic Morphisms
>
>
>I am working also with semiotic morphisms, categories, functors, natural
>transformations of functors and lattices...
>
>http://www.univ-perp.fr/see/rch/lts/marty/semantic-ns/
>
>Robert Marty
>Professeur en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication à
>l'Université de Perpignan
>***********************************************************************
>http://come.to/robert.marty
>***********************************************************************
>WAP : robert.marty@itineris.net http://www.wapdrive.net/r.marty
>***********************************************************************
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSION GROUP [mailto:PORT-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU]De
> > la part de John F. Sowa
> > Envoyé : vendredi 30 mars 2001 20:45
> > À : PORT-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> > Objet : Re: [PORT-L] Goguen's Semiotic Morphisms
> >
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > That reference you suggested,
> >
> > http://www.mind.to/
> >
> > led me to a paper by Joe Goguen on semiotic morphisms:
> >
> > http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/users/goguen/papers/sm/smm.html
> >
> > My meaning-preserving translations, which we have recently
> > been discussing are a species of the genus, semiotic morphisms:
> >
> > http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/logic/meaning.htm
> >
> > And Alonzo Church's rules for lambda conversion are also
> > a species of the genus semiotic morphisms:
> >
> > http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/logic/alonzo.htm
> >
> > Following is an excerpt from Goguen's paper, which discusses
> > related applications to user interfaces and other applications.
> > Goguen's approach to algebraic semiotics looks like a useful
> > way of formalizing the axioms about signs and sign systems.
> >
> > John Sowa
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >
> > We now turn to our primary concern, which is the movement
> > (translation, interpretation,
> > representation) of signs from one
> > system into signs in another system. Generating a satisfactory
> > explanation or
> > a good "icon" (in the informal sense used for
> > computer graphics), choosing a good file name or a good analogy,
> > and understanding
> > metaphors, explanations, graphics,
> > and multimedia texts, are all problems of translating signs from
> > one system
> > to another, as is the problem of using a
> > mixture of media to present a given content in an optimal way. In
> > these cases,
> > we know about signs in the source system,
> > and we seek to find a suitable target system and mapping that
> > will preserve
> > the information of interest in an optimal way.
> > A converse situation is also often encountered, in which we know
> > about the target
> > sign system, and seek to infer
> > properties of signs in the source system from their images in the
> > target system.
> > This occurs, for example, when we try to
> > understand a poem, an equation, or indeed, anything at all.
> >
> > We address questions about the nature of translations between
> > sign systems,
> > and the reasons for preferring one translation
> > to another, by studying maps from signs in one system to
> > "representation" signs
> > in another system. These maps are called
> > semiotic morphisms, and are made very precise in Definition 2 of
> > the paper [8a].
> > These handle metaphors, analogies,
> > etc., as well as representations in the more familiar user
> > interface design
> > sense. Just as we defined sign systems as
> > theories rather than models, so their mappings translate from the
> > language of
> > one sign system to the language of another,
> > instead of just translating the concrete signs in a model. If
> > this sounds a
> > bit indirect - well, it is; but it has advantages over
> > a model based approach to representations (see the discussion on
> > page 7 of [8a]).
> >
> >
> > A good semiotic morphism should preserve as much of the structure
> > of its source
> > sign system as possible. Certainly it
> > should map sorts to sorts, subsorts to subsorts, data sorts to
> > data sorts, constants
> > to constants, constructors to
> > constructors, etc. But it turns out that in many real world
> > examples, not everything
> > can be preserved. So we must allow
> > all these maps to be partial. Axioms should also be preserved -
> > but again in
> > practice, sometimes not all axioms are
> > preserved. The extent to which things are preserved provides a
> > way of comparing
> > the quality of semiotic morphisms (this
> > is the point of Definition 3 in [8a]).
> >
============================================================================
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
immediately.
============================================================================
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EVNB7A/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/IaAVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 31 2001 - 10:53:33 PST