Meinongian Semantics for Propositional Semantic Networks

Til ts pape r s u r v e y s severa l a p p r o a c h e s to s eman t t c -ne tw ,~ rk s e m a n t ics t ha t h a v e not p r e v i o u s l y been t rea ted ~n the AI or c o m p u t a t t o n a l l i ngu t s t t c s h t e r a t u r e , t h o u g h there ~s a large ptulu. ~)ph~cal h t e r a t u r e i n v e s t ) g a t i n g t hem m ~ m l e d e t a d . In p a r t t c u l a r , p r o F ~ n ~ o n a l s e m a n t t c n e t w o r k s ( e x e m p h h e d hv ~,NeP%)are dis cus .~d , it ts a r g u e d t ha t ~mlv a I u l l ' ; m t e n s t o n a l ( " M e m ( m g t a n " ) s e m a n t i c s is appr t )p r t a t e I(~r t h e m . a n d se'~eral \ | e ln(~nglan svs t en l s a re presented . 1. SEMANTICS OF SEMANTIC NETWORKS. ~eman t l c netw¢~rks have p r ( ~ e d rt~ I~ a use lu l dahl , , t rue.lure for r ep r e sen t i ng m l o r m a t t t m . =.e., a "knt~wledt , e'" r e p r e ~ n t a t m n svs tenn. (A I '~tter t e r m m t d o g v ix "'belief" teptexentatiott system; t.f. R a p a ~ ) r t and Shaptn~ 1984. Rapap(tr t 198.1hL The ~tlt'.= =,, an ,lid one: Inheritance networks (Iqg. I ) , h k e tht,se ~1 ()ulllti |II 1968. (,has f e a t h e r ~ ) Fig. 1. An inher i tance n e t w o r k . I~>hrnw and Win(~grad 's KRI. (1977) , ,,r IIra~.hman',, K I . ( ) ' , I . (1979,), bear s t r o n g t a m t t v r e ~ m b l a n u e s t() " l ' .wphvrv ' , , I'ree'" (I ~t,. 2)---a med iaeva l device u.~d t~> d l u s t r a t e the . \ r : s t , .~ehan ' he t , rv ,~I definn~(m by ~pe~:e~ and d~fferent~a ((-I. Kret~ 'mann I~ 'hh. ('It 2; Knea le and Knea le It~hh: 232). It has been r~ ,n t ed (~ut t ha t t i tere ~s n o t h i n g e s s e n t m l l y "~eman t t c " a b o u t s e m a n t i c n e t w o r k s ( l l e n d n x 1979; hu t cf. W o o d s 1975. B r a c h m a n 1979). Indeed. v~ewed ,as a d a t a s t r u c t u r e , it is a r g u a b l e t h a t a s e m a n t i c n e t w o r k m a language (r,,~.,~lhlV w~th an a~st~lated Ingle (~r ~nference m e c h a n m m ) f(~r r ep resen t i ng inlornlatl(}n ah~)ut ,aline d ( ,mam, and, as such, IS a p u r e l y syntactic e n t i t y . T h e y have (-(~me to he (-ailed " semant tc ' " p r i m a r i l y hecau.~ ~d the i r uses as w a r t , ~ll r ep resen t ing tile meanings (~f h n g u t s t i c !tems¢. As a no ta t t (ma l device , a s e m a n u c net'a. ' tlrk ~an ~tseil be g~','en a semantic,s. T h a t is, the art, s. nc,Jes, a n d rules (~l :. s e m a n t i c net~, '(irk r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l s y s t e m (.an 1~' g iven in te rpre ta t ions , in t e r m s (if the en t i t i e s t hey are u ~ d tit represent . Wi t i lou t ~;uch a s eman t i c s , a s e m a n t i c n e t w o r k is an a rh l t r a r ' ¢ not-':tt(mal dev;ce Imble tt~ m t s m t e r p r e t a t = o n te l . Wtx.ds 1975; I ! , ra thman i977 . 1983; Mclgerm~ltt 1981 ). T h e task (~! p r o v : d i n g a semant t~s For s e m a n t i c n e t w o r k s is more ak=n tt~ the task t ) f p r o v i d i n g a ,~mant~cs For a language t han I'()r a logic. ,crate in the l a t t e r ca.;e, hu t not m the ( . jenl ls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > D i f f e r e n t i a . . . . . > C ( ) R ~ ) ~ / N O N C O R P O R E A L Species .............. > ~ L