Search (126 results, page 1 of 7)

0.04510611 = product of:
  0.09021222 = sum of:
    0.09021222 = product of:
      0.36084887 = sum of:
        0.36084887 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.36084887 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38523552 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.02856791 = product of:
  0.05713582 = sum of:
    0.05713582 = product of:
      0.11427164 = sum of:
        0.11427164 = weight(_text_:i in 1950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11427164 = score(doc=1950,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.6667539 = fieldWeight in 1950, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Mapping er en aktivitet hvor det etableres relasjoner mellom begreper i to ulike kontrollerte vokabularer. Man mapper fra et kildevokabular og finner korresponderende begreper i et målvokabular. Mapping brukes også til å benevne resultatet av en mappingaktivitet, dvs. relasjonen mellom et begrep i ett vokabular og en eller flere begreper i et annet vokabular.

0.024996921 = product of:
  0.049993843 = sum of:
    0.049993843 = product of:
      0.099987686 = sum of:
        0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099987686 = score(doc=4530,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I need to measure semantic similarity between CSO ontology concepts, depending on Ontology structure (concept path, depth, least common subsumer (LCS) ...). CSO (Computer Science Ontology) is a large-scale ontology of research areas. A concepts in CSO may have multiple parents/super concepts (i.e. a concept may be a child of many other concepts), e.g. : (world wide web) is parent of (semantic web) (semantics) is parent of (semantic web) I found some measures that meet my needs, but the papers proposing these measures are not cited, so i got hesitated. I also found a measure that depends on weighted edges, but multiple inheritance (super concepts) is not considered..

0.022553055 = product of:
  0.04510611 = sum of:
    0.04510611 = product of:
      0.18042444 = sum of:
        0.18042444 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18042444 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38523552 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.02176619 = product of:
  0.04353238 = sum of:
    0.04353238 = product of:
      0.08706476 = sum of:
        0.08706476 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08706476 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.02164797 = product of:
  0.04329594 = sum of:
    0.04329594 = product of:
      0.08659188 = sum of:
        0.08659188 = weight(_text_:i in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08659188 = score(doc=1077,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.5052476 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.

0.021547427 = product of:
  0.043094855 = sum of:
    0.043094855 = product of:
      0.08618971 = sum of:
        0.08618971 = weight(_text_:22 in 8365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08618971 = score(doc=8365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:08:38

0.018469224 = product of:
  0.036938448 = sum of:
    0.036938448 = product of:
      0.073876895 = sum of:
        0.073876895 = weight(_text_:22 in 1552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073876895 = score(doc=1552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1552, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2018 11:04:35

0.017854942 = product of:
  0.035709884 = sum of:
    0.035709884 = product of:
      0.07141977 = sum of:
        0.07141977 = weight(_text_:i in 3299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07141977 = score(doc=3299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 3299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.017854942 = product of:
  0.035709884 = sum of:
    0.035709884 = product of:
      0.07141977 = sum of:
        0.07141977 = weight(_text_:i in 4520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07141977 = score(doc=4520,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 4520, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4520)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to critically assess the 'three-world theory' as it is presented-with some slight but decisive differences-by Ju¨rgen Habermas and Karl Popper. This theory presents the philosophy of science with a conceptual and material problem, insofar as it claims that science has no single access to all aspects of the world. Although I will try to demonstrate advantages of Popper's idea of 'the third world' of ideas, the shortcomings of his ontological stance become visible from the pragmatic point of view in Habermas's theory of communicative acts. With regard to the critique that the three-world theory has met in both its pragmatic and ontological versions, I will take a closer look at John Searle's naturalistic counter-position. By teasing out some problematic implications in his theory of causation, I aim to show that Searle's approach is, in fact, much closer to Popper's than he might think. Finally, while condoning Habermas's distinction between the natural world and the lifeworld, I will opt for a pragmatically differentiated view of 'the real', rather than speaking of different worlds.

0.017675493 = product of:
  0.035350986 = sum of:
    0.035350986 = product of:
      0.07070197 = sum of:
        0.07070197 = weight(_text_:i in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07070197 = score(doc=2265,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The recent article by McKay et al. on browsing (2019) provides a valuable addition to the empirical literature of information science on this topic, and I read the descriptions of the various browsing cases with interest. However, the authors refer to my article on browsing (Bates, 2007) in ways that do not make sense to me and which do not at all conform to what I actually said.

0.017412951 = product of:
  0.034825902 = sum of:
    0.034825902 = product of:
      0.069651805 = sum of:
        0.069651805 = weight(_text_:22 in 4313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069651805 = score(doc=4313,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 4313, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2018 14:22:02

0.015462836 = product of:
  0.030925673 = sum of:
    0.030925673 = product of:
      0.061851345 = sum of:
        0.061851345 = weight(_text_:i in 1865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061851345 = score(doc=1865,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.36089116 = fieldWeight in 1865, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There's something magical about Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs). I still remember when I trained my first recurrent network for Image Captioning. Within a few dozen minutes of training my first baby model (with rather arbitrarily-chosen hyperparameters) started to generate very nice looking descriptions of images that were on the edge of making sense. Sometimes the ratio of how simple your model is to the quality of the results you get out of it blows past your expectations, and this was one of those times. What made this result so shocking at the time was that the common wisdom was that RNNs were supposed to be difficult to train (with more experience I've in fact reached the opposite conclusion). Fast forward about a year: I'm training RNNs all the time and I've witnessed their power and robustness many times, and yet their magical outputs still find ways of amusing me. This post is about sharing some of that magic with you. By the way, together with this post I am also releasing code on Github (https://github.com/karpathy/char-rnn) that allows you to train character-level language models based on multi-layer LSTMs. You give it a large chunk of text and it will learn to generate text like it one character at a time. You can also use it to reproduce my experiments below. But we're getting ahead of ourselves; What are RNNs anyway?

0.01539102 = product of:
  0.03078204 = sum of:
    0.03078204 = product of:
      0.06156408 = sum of:
        0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06156408 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2017 12:51:57

0.01539102 = product of:
  0.03078204 = sum of:
    0.03078204 = product of:
      0.06156408 = sum of:
        0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06156408 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.01539102 = product of:
  0.03078204 = sum of:
    0.03078204 = product of:
      0.06156408 = sum of:
        0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 2762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06156408 = score(doc=2762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 2.2016 17:22:23

0.01539102 = product of:
  0.03078204 = sum of:
    0.03078204 = product of:
      0.06156408 = sum of:
        0.06156408 = weight(_text_:22 in 4999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06156408 = score(doc=4999,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4999, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2019 11:45:19

0.015307425 = product of:
  0.03061485 = sum of:
    0.03061485 = product of:
      0.0612297 = sum of:
        0.0612297 = weight(_text_:i in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0612297 = score(doc=3891,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.35726398 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Let us start with your positive experiences with Google. I have known Google longer than most. At Opera, we were the first to add their search into the browser interface, enabling it directly from the search box and the address field. At that time, Google was an up-and-coming geeky company. I remember vividly meeting with Google's co-founder Larry Page, his relaxed dress code and his love for the Danger device, which he played with throughout our meeting. Later, I met with the other co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin, and got positive vibes. My first impression of Google was that it was a likeable company. Our cooperation with Google was a good one. Integrating their search into Opera helped us deliver a better service to our users and generated revenue that paid the bills. We helped Google grow, along with others that followed in our footsteps and integrated Google search into their browsers. Then the picture for you and for opera darkened. Yes, then things changed. Google increased their proximity with the Mozilla foundation. They also introduced new services such as Google Docs. These services were great, gained quick popularity, but also exposed the darker side of Google. Not only were these services made to be incompatible with Opera, but also encouraged users to switch their browsers. I brought this up with Sergey Brin, in vain. For millions of Opera users to be able to access these services, we had to hide our browser's identity. The browser sniffing situation only worsened after Google started building their own browser, Chrome. ...
How should Google be regulated? We should limit the amount of information that is being collected. In particular we should look at information that is being collected across sites. It should not be legal to combine data from multiple sites and services. The fact that these sites and services are using the same underlying technology does not change the fact that the user's dealings is with a site at a time and each site should not have the right to share the data with others. I believe this the cornerstone of laws in many countries today, but these laws need to be enforced. Data about us is ours alone and it should not be possible to sell it. We should also limit the ability to target users individually. In the past, ads on sites were ads on sites. You might know what kind of users visited a site and you would place tech ads on tech sites and fashion ads on fashion sites. Now the ads follow you individually. That should be made illegal as it uses data collected from multiple sources and invades our privacy. I also believe there should be regulation as to how location data is used and any information related to our mobile devices. In addition, regulators need to be vigilant as to how companies that have monopoly power use their power. That kind of goes without saying. Companies with monopoly powers should not be able to use those powers when competing in an open market or using their monopoly services to limit competition."

0.015236333 = product of:
  0.030472666 = sum of:
    0.030472666 = product of:
      0.060945332 = sum of:
        0.060945332 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060945332 = score(doc=3450,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 3450, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: DocEng2011, September 19-22, 2011, Mountain View, California, USA Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0863-2/11/09

Date

22. 2.2017 13:00:42

0.015150423 = product of:
  0.030300846 = sum of:
    0.030300846 = product of:
      0.060601693 = sum of:
        0.060601693 = weight(_text_:i in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060601693 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, I have traced a series of evolutionary adaptations of FOL motivated entirely by its use by knowledge engineers to represent and share information on the Web culminating in the development of Common Logic. While the primary goal in this paper has been to document this evolution, it is arguable, I think that CL's syntactic and semantic egalitarianism better realizes the goal "topic neutrality" that a logic should ideally exemplify - understood, at least in part, as the idea that logic should as far as possible not itself embody any metaphysical presuppositions. Instead of retaining the traditional metaphysical divisions of FOL that reflect its Fregean origins, CL begins as it were with a single, metaphysically homogeneous domain in which, potentially, anything can play the traditional roles of object, property, relation, and function. Note that the effect of this is not to destroy traditional metaphysical divisions. Rather, it simply to refrain from building those divisions explicitly into one's logic; instead, such divisions are left to the user to introduce and enforce axiomatically in an explicit metaphysical theory.