Ologs: a categorical framework for knowledge representation

Haskell is not really category-theoretic. The category Hask doesn't quite line up with real-world Haskell. The disconnection is well-understood and well-documented [0][1]. Category theory can directly give us systems from theories. See the papers behind FQL/CQL for more details, especially [2] and [3]. [0] https://wiki.haskell.org/Hask [1] http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nad/publications/danielsson-et-a... [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526

Mathematics is metaphysics. I'd like your refutation to center on any nuance which might separate the two disciplines other than the sad fact that many philosophers don't learn much maths. Logic is metaphysics: https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf Logic is mathematical, logic is categorical (structured in a deep way amenable to category theory), maths is categorical: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/internal+logic https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/topos Ontology is categorical: https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526 The working programmer is an ontologist and a taxonomist, but this fact isn't well-understood.

Reminds me of ologs: https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 The category on top of a given graph just adds path equivalences. While that might not seem like a big addition, it's crucial for restricting the structure's internal state.

+1 Insightful. In fact, there's research toward showing the two are equivalent in possibility space of what can be represented/queried (https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889) But yes, linked data and graphs are super powerful once the data is triplified. Suddenly you have an abstraction above the contents of your data into the 'shape' of your data. SPARQL and RDF aren't going away, but they're the academic thing that I and others are trying to make useful. GraphQL is scratching the surface, but it's super exciting that it's scratching at all, imo. (Disclosure: Founded CayleyGraph, supporting the open source https://github.com/cayleygraph/cayley, which I maintain and mostly wrote)

Unfortunately, Kialo does not have any features for structural reasoning, where the logical connections between arguments are completely formalized and precise. It relies on a human element to check each argument. Edit: How to do this formally? Look at formal systems for hints of how to do it in the 1900s, or category theory for how to do it in the modern day. [0][1] [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526