Mike- (01)
Are you aware of any such ontology tools among the 150+ that Michael Denny
has recently surveyed for XML.com or other surveys of ontology tools such as
TopQuadrant? (02)
Bob Smith (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Brenner
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 7:50 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What do ontologies have to do with meaning? (04)
I would like to become familiar with ontology tools capable of expressing
more than simple "literal" meaning. (05)
I would like a "true meaning", by which I mean a clustering of information
showing how the literal meaning maps to the multiple contexts. That mapping
includes constraints, dependencies, and effects from partially defined and
partially related chains of symbols. (06)
Thus, I don't see meaning as related to conceptual forms in the mind of the
reader, but rather to physical forms which are the context in which the
communication takes place. (07)
Mike Brenner (08)
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>
> I agree with Adam that this question seems to be an odd topic for a
workshop.
> For me the practical answer is very simple, and to go beyond that
> doesn't seem to have much purpose. It may be true that a lot of
> people who are just starting to create ontologies don't really grasp
> how one specifies conceptual content using axioms to define predicates
> -- but that would be a topic for a tutorial, not a workshop.
> It is hard to avoid the question completely because in discussions
> of knowledge representation generally and ontology in particular, the
> term "meaning" is used a lot, expected to be interpreted in its
> intuitive sense, but it is natural for readers to wonder if there is a
> specific definition.
> When I say "meaning" I mean this: a text carries information that
> allows an intelligent reader (human or machine) to make alternative
> **choices** based on the structure of text -- words, images, and and
> format. The document content symbolizes conceptual structures in the
> mind of the agent that created the text. The more information a text
> has, the more choices are enabled, and the more
> (quantitative) meaning the text has. The information content depends
> on the intention of the agent constructing the text, since it might
> not be interpretable by any other agent (if, e.g., encoded in a
> private code). The "meaning" itself is ***the set of conceptual
> structures in the mind of the creating agent that are symbolized by
> the text and its format***. When the agent reading the text
> determines that the symbols refer to a specific set of conceptual
> structures, and these are the same as the conceptual structures in the
> mind of the creating agent, the reading agent has correctly
> interpreted the "meaning". An agent can determine the meaning of some
> parts of a text and not others.
> Determining the meaning (conceptual structures) of any part of the
> text enables the reading agent to make choices based on
> that information. An ontology provides a formal set of symbols
> for conceptual structures which, if used by both the agent creating a
> text and the agent reading a text, allows the reading agent to
> reproduce the conceptual structures which were in the mind of the
> creating agent and were encoded in those symbols. The predicates get
> meaning by their definitional implications using axioms, which provide
> symbols whose relation to fundamental conceptual structures is widely
> understood.
> To contrast this, we know that file transfer protocols can take a
> file on one computer and create a copy on another computer.
> When the protocol creates an exact copy and the action of the
> receiving computer does not depend on any element of content of the
> file, the computer does not use any element of "meaning" encoded in
> the file.
> But as soon as the computer reading a file can make some **choice
> of actions** depending on the content of the file, it has interpreted
> the file in some way and can be said to have used some element of
> "meaning" in the file. This can be very trivial, as when a transfer
> protocol converts cr-lf line ends to lf or vice-versa. In such a
> case, the computer has interpreted one part of the format, which is
> (or could be) part of the meaning of a file. So there is a continuum
> of meaning, from the very trivial to the very complex.
> At a slightly more complex level, a computer might receive a file
> labeled "invoice" and because of that label, search for the fields
> labeled "amount due" and "pay to", and then print a check in the
> amount due to the payee named.
> The computer has then interpreted some elements of meaning encoded in
> the text. If the computer also scans the line item fields in the
> invoice to determine whether the items received are those the invoice
> says were sent, it is interpreting other elements of meaning in the
> invoice.
>
> This is a very practical use of the term -- the meaning of a text
> is the set of conceptual structures that the creating agent intends it
> to symbolize, provided that the agent has encoded that meaning (the
> conceptual structures) correctly.
>
> I don't think we need a conference to debate these issues.
> If it gets much more complicated than the above, then, as Adam says,
> the discussion would get too philosophical and distract from the
> practical tasks.
>
> Pat
>
> ======================================================
>
> Adam Pease wrote:
> > Folks,
> > I'm kind of surprised at the workshop text. This is an issue that
> > has been debated at length for decades in computer science, and over
> > a century if one expands to semiotics. Some researchers like Rodney
> > Brooks take a strong situatedness view that symbols must be
> > ultimately grounded in the physical world to have meaning. Others
> > take a "brain in a vat" view that meaning, and by extension,
> > intelligence, need not be situated. Ultimately I view this as an
> > interesting but unresolvable philosophical debate, without much
> > impact on practical ontology building, and on which I wonder whether
> > much additional light might be shed. Building systems, whether
> > situated or not, is unlikely to address this issue. In fact, I'd
> > venture that this is the sort of topic which can have a substantial
> > negative impact by distracting from the practical tasks of building and
using ontologies.
> > I'll go back to my grumpy guy cave now :-)
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > At 07:21 PM 6/3/2004 -0400, Internet Business Logic wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All --
> >>
> >> In case you have not already seen it, there is a very interesting
> >> call for workshop papers [1].
> >> The workshop theme begins:
> >>
> >> "What do ontologies, as used in the semantic web and elsewhere,
> >> have to do with meaning? In particular, where do their predicates
> >> get their meanings? Semantics, no matter what formalisms are
> >> applied to it, is ultimately a cognitive phenomenon: it refers to
> >> the meaning that symbols have for human beings. ...."
> >>
> >> This is a question that is also raised at a nuts-and-bolts level in
> >> [2], where a technical, implemented answer is attempted.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts or pointers about [1] and/or [2] ? Peter -- is this a
> >> suitable topic for an extended discussion on this forum?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> -- Adrian
> >>
> >> [1] http://fois2004.di.unito.it/workshops.html
> >>
> >> [2] "Semantic Web Presentation" at www.reengineeringllc.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Internet Business Logic -- online at www.reengineeringllc.com
> >>
> >> Reengineering LLC, PO Box 1412, Bristol, CT 06011-1412, USA
> >>
> >> Phone 860 583 9677 Mobile 860 830 2085 Fax 860 314 1029
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> >> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
> >> mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
> > mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
>
> --
> =============================================
> Patrick Cassidy
>
> MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> 735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer above)
> Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054
>
> internet: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> =============================================
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
> mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|