A quick meta-point on the issue, and the term *factoid. * 1. The issue as a whole involves so many different complicated questions that any attempt to simplify inference without explicating them separately is likely to have problems. The issue might involve epistemic modal logics; doxastic logics (which usually are paraconsistent); justification logics; context logics; speech acts; quotation; DRT; and all sorts of other fun stuff.
It might be possible to provide for the desired inferences using something like IKL (~ ISO Common Logic plus a proposition forming operator (that)). Like CL, it's first order with quantification over predicates. 2. The term *factoid* has a second sense in US English, referring to a something that is true, but trivial. This sense is almost completely dominant; a factoid in this sense is JTB. The earlier sense has been more or less obliterated in common usage. I translate the first sense to be "a belief justified solely by a single writing" , possibly with a connotation the creator of the writing either believed the factoid to be false, or believed that they did not know the factoid, though that could be definitional. This sense of factoid seems to be not JTB, even if it is accidentally true, and the form of the publication would normally be justification. [NB: not equating JTB and *knowledge] * Simon On Apr 4, 2017 9:19 AM, "Francesco Beretta" < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model: > > http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/# > > Best > > Francesco > > Le 30.03.17 à 17:10, martin a écrit : > > Dear All, > > My colleague Athina found the following paper: > Michele Pasin, John Bradley; Factoid-based prosopography and computer > ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Lit Linguist Computing 2015; 30 > (1): 86-97. > > It seems that "factoid" describes the attitude towards a text I tried to > formulate as "Reading" ? > > Best, > > Martin > > On 23/3/2017 8:10 μμ, martin wrote: > > Dear All, > > I propose to start the discussion about a simplified Inference model for > the case in which the interpretation of a text as a proposition is not > questioned, but other things are questioned: > > A) assertions of historical truth: We need a text with a questioned fact, > such as Nero singing in Rome when it was burning. I think Tacitus states he > was singing in Rome, and another source says he was on the countryside. > > B) Shakespeare's "love is not love" : scholarly interpretation = > translation of sense > > C) Questioning provenance or authenticity of texts: In the Merchant of > Venice, place details are mentioned that only a person who was there could > have written that. Shakespeare was not allowed to travel abroad. > C1) Or, critical editions: In the first written version of Buddha's > speaches (Pali Canon), there are identifiable passages that present > past-Buddha dogmata. > > I would start with A), then B), then C) > > So, we first want to solve the case that the premise is a proposition, > which is not believed as such. > Rather, it is believed that the author of the text meant to express this > proposition. This implies that the premise does not make any sense without > a provenance assumption, which must be believed. > > In A), the provenance of the text from Tacitus is believed. His good will > to say the truth about Nero not. > In B) The provenance "Shakespeare" back to the respective edition/name or > pseudonym/place of creation is not questioned. > In C1) The text as being that compiled following the first performance is > not questioned, but who wrote the text under the name of Shakespeare is > questioned. > In C2) The provenance of the Pali Canon edition is not questioned, neither > that its content mainly goes historically back to Buddha, but the > provenance of a paragraph is questioned. > > Therefore, we could Introduce a subclass of I2 Belief i'd call "reading", > which puts the focus on believing authenticity of a comprehensible natural > language proposition relative to an explicitly stated provenance, but does > not mean believing the proposition, nor questioning the intended meaning of > the text: > > J1 used as premise (was premise for) : IXX Reading > > IXX Reading subclass of I2 Belief (or a generalized Belief) > > properties of IXX Reading: > JX1 understanding : Information Object (the cited phrase, understanding > the words) > JX2 believing provenance : I4 Proposition Set (This contains the link > from the cited phrase to the text the phrase is taken from, and all > provenance data believed. E.g. Shakespeare edition 1648(??) believed, > authorship by Shakespeare questioned, etc.) > *optional:* > JX3 reading as : I4 Proposition Set (the translation of the cited into > triples. If absent, the interpretation of the cited phrase is regarded to > be obvious) > > and J5 defaults to "true" (I believe all "J5 > <#m_-2995047193393367931__J5_holds_to>holds to be: I6 > <#m_-2995047193393367931__I6_Belief_Value>Belief Value" should default to > "True" if absent). > > Then, a conclusion could be that the Information Object (cited phrase) is > not believed. In that case, we would need to generalize I4 to be either a > Named Graph or an unambiguous text. If we do not, we could use JX1, JX3 to > introduce the translation of the cited text as formal proposition, and then > use J5 to say "FALSE": "Nero singing in burning Rome 18 to 24 July, 64 AD" > > In the case of text sense interpretation, we would need a sort of "has > translation" construct, if not simply a work about another work (FRBRoo). > > The representation of a text in a formal proposition (Nero P14 performed > E7 Activity P2 has type "singing" ...falls within Destruction....) > > In the case of the Buddhist text, we would need in addition the believe in > the provenance of the post-Buddha dogma, plus the reading, resulting in a > different provenance for the paragraph. > > If we agree on something like that, let us see if we can simplify or > shortcut anything. > > best, > > Martin > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: [email protected] | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: [email protected] | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing > [email protected]http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > >
