Abstract
Rejecting the temptation to make up a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for diagrammatic and sentential systems, we present an important distinction which arises from sentential and diagrammatic features of systems. Importantly, the distinction we will explore in the paper lies at a meta-level. That is, we argue for a major difference in metatheory between diagrammatic and sentential systems, by showing the necessity of a more fine-grained syntax for a diagrammatic system than for a sentential system. Unlike with sentential systems, a diagrammatic system requires two levels of syntax—token and type. Token-syntax is about particular diagrams instantiated on some physical medium, and type-syntax provides a formal definition with which a concrete representation of a diagram must comply. While these two levels of syntax are closely related, the domains of type-syntax and token-syntax are distinct from each other. Euler diagrams are chosen as a case study to illustrate the following major points of the paper: (i) What kinds of diagrammatic features (as opposed to sentential features) require two different levels of syntax? (ii) What is the relation between these two levels of syntax? (iii) What is the advantage of having a two-tiered syntax?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
L. Euler. Lettres a Une Princesse d’Allemagne, vol 2. 1761. Letters No. 102-108.
J. Flower, J. Howse. Generating Euler Diagrams. Accepted for Diagrams 2002.
J. Gil, J. Howse, S. Kent. Towards a formalization of constraint diagrams, Proc Symp on Human-Centric Computing, Stresa, Sept 2001. IEEE Press
N. Goodman. Languages of Art: An approachto a theory of symbols. Hackett Publishing Co, INC. 1976.
C. Gurr, J. Lee and K. Stenning. Theories of diagrammatic reasoning: Distinguishing component problems, in Minds and Machines 8, 533–557, 1998.
E. Hammer. Logic and Visual Information. CSLI Publications, 1995.
D. Harel. On visual formalisms. In J. Glasgow, N. H. Narayan, B. Chandrasekaran, eds, Diagrammatic Reasoning, 235–271. MIT Press, 1998.
T. More. On the construction of Venn diagrams. J Symb Logic, 24, 303–304, 1959.
OMG. UML Specification, Version 1.3. Available from http://www.omg.org.
C. Peirce. Collected Papers Vol. 4. Harvard Univ. Press, 1933.
P. Scotto di Luzio. Patching up a logic of Venn diagrams. Proc. 6th CSLI WS on Logic, Language and Computation. CSLI Publications, Stanford, 2000.
A. Shimojima. Operational constraints in diagrammatic reasoning, in J. Barwise, G. Allwein eds. Logical Reasoning with Diagrams. OUP, New York, 27–48, 1996.
S.-J. Shin. The Logical Status of Diagrams. CUP, 1994.
J. Venn. On the diagrammatic and mechanical representation of propositions and reasonings. Phil.Mag., 1880. 123.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Howse, J., Molina, F., Shin, SJ., Taylor, J. (2002). On Diagram Tokens and Types. In: Hegarty, M., Meyer, B., Narayanan, N.H. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Diagrams 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2317. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46037-3_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46037-3_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43561-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46037-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive