14 Feb
2024
14 Feb
'24
2:42 p.m.
Hi John and list.
That reminds me of Zachman’s Primitive Interrogatives (About the Zachman Framework -
Zachman International - FEAC Institute
(zachman-feac.com)<https://zachman-feac.com/zachman/about-the-zachman-fra….>).
John, I know you worked with John when you were at IBM. Indeed, I remember your subsequent
joint paper in 1992<https://jfsowa.com/pubs/sowazach.pdf>df>. Other work also shows
their use in the reemerging discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) e.g., [1509.07360]
Ordering stakeholder viewpoint concerns for holistic and incremental Enterprise
Architecture: the W6H framework (arxiv.org)<https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.07360>60>.
Therefore, I’d like to know the six kinds of reference a sign may have to its
interpretants in EA, which would bring it into real-world applications epitomised by
TOGAF’s Figure 3-3: Interactions between Metamodel, Building Blocks, Diagrams, and
Stakeholders (in the TOGAF® Standard — Introduction - Architectural Artifacts
(opengroup.org)<https://pubs.opengroup.org/togaf-standard/architecture-co…ml>.
Thanks!
Simon
From: John F Sowa <sowa(a)bestweb.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:15 AM
To: Conceptual Graphs <cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org>rg>; Peirce List
<peirce-l(a)list.iupui.edu>
Subject: [CG] Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why (was Sign Relations
Jon,
I completely agree with the following principle:
JA> Another aspect of a sign's complete meaning concerns the reference a sign has
to its interpretants...
And there are six kinds of reference that a sign my have to its interpretants. Each kind
corresponds to one of the six basic question words in English (or their equivalents in
other languages). Questions that begin with the first four question words may be answers
with one word or phrase: Who, What, When, and Where. Any such question may be answered
with one word or phrase and a MONADIC relation.
Questions that begin with How can be answered in a sentence with a dyadic verb, a DYADIC
relation.
And questions that begin with Why require require a sentence with a verb that requires a
subject, object, and an indirect object or a prepositional phrase: a TRIADIC relation.
In short, that is the distinction between Peirce's Firstness, Secondness, and
Thirdness. The monadic relations of Firstness express answers to the words Who, What,
When, or Where, The dyadic relations of Secondness express answers to the word How. And
the triadic relations of Thirdness answer questions to the word Why.
In summary. all examples of Thirdness are answers to Why-questions. They all express some
kind of intention or purpose or explanation or reason for the triadic connection.
John
________________________________
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@att.net<mailto:jawbrey@att.net>>
Sent: 2/13/24 9:02 AMc
Another aspect of a sign's complete meaning concerns the reference
a sign has to its interpretants, which interpretants are collectively
known as the “connotation” of the sign. In the pragmatic theory of
sign relations, connotative references fall within the projection
of the sign relation on the plane spanned by its sign domain and
its interpretant domain.
In the full theory of sign relations the connotative aspect of meaning
includes the links a sign has to affects, concepts, ideas, impressions,
intentions, and the whole realm of an interpretive agent's mental states
and allied activities, broadly encompassing intellectual associations,
emotional impressions, motivational impulses, and real conduct.
Taken at the full, in the natural setting of semiotic phenomena, this
complex system of references is unlikely ever to find itself mapped in
much detail, much less completely formalized, but the tangible warp of
its accumulated mass is commonly alluded to as the connotative import
of language.
Formally speaking, however, the connotative aspect of meaning presents
no additional difficulty. The dyadic relation making up the connotative
aspect of a sign relation L is notated as Con(L). Information about the
connotative aspect of meaning is obtained from L by taking its projection
on the sign‑interpretant plane. We may visualize this as the “shadow” L
casts on the 2‑dimensional space whose axes are the sign domain S and the
interpretant domain I. The connotative component of a sign relation L,
alternatively written in any of forms, proj_{SI} L, L_SI, proj₂₃ L, and
L₂₃, is defined as follows.
• Con(L) = proj_{SI} L = {(s, i) ∈ S × I : (o, s, i) ∈ L for some o ∈ O}.
Tables 4a and 4b show the connotative components of the sign relations
associated with the interpreters A and B, respectively. The rows of
each Table list the ordered pairs (s, i) in the corresponding projections,
Con(L_A), Con(L_B) ⊆ S × I.
Tables 4a and 4b. Connotative Components Con(L_A) and Con(L_B)
•
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/sign-relation-twin-t…
Resources —
Sign Relations
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation
Connotation
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation#Connotation
Document History
• https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation#Document_history
Regards,
Jon
cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/LmnnXP
cc:
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/111891382765624469_________________________…
