Hi Adam, (01)
Okay, I'll not post non-communication semantics questions
to "ontolog" any more. (02)
Mike (03)
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> Mike,
> In your original post you commented:
>
> "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."
>
> Are you now addressing agents which don't communicate, and somehow learn an
> ontology from experiences? If so, then that doesn't seem relevant to this
> forum.
>
> Adam
>
> At 03:12 PM 6/9/2004 -0400, Mike Brenner wrote:
> >My point was that they are not communicating, and
> >the meaning they take from events does not involve
> >any aspect of communication.
> >
> >What they are doing is building up their opinion
> >on what has happened and applying that opinion to
> >modify their plans, without communicating that opinion
> >or using their ontologies to communicate.
> >
> >
> >
> >Adam Pease wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > > Well, if you are working with agents, then the phrase "true meaning",
>as
> > > you've defined it, is meaningless :-). Unless those agents have the same
> > > memory and cognitive powers as humans (which is a long way off), they
>won't
> > > have the ability to perform the contextualization and disambiguation that
> > > humans do, and so they won't be communicating in anything other than some
> > > sort of formal language employing only "literal meaning".
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > At 02:24 PM 6/9/2004 -0400, Mike Brenner wrote:
> > > >Hi Adam,
> > > >
> > > >Excellent example, but the introductory remark "used in communication"
> > > >is the real distinction. I am not using semantics for
> > > >communication. I am using semantics to help agents understand
> > > >their own universe. There is no one to communicate with.
> > > >
> > > >Therefore, it is interesting that this started with asking whether
> > > >I was guilty of using linguistic meanings for the fundamental terms.
> > > >I would guess, no, I am using non-linguisitic, and non-communication
> > > >meanings. Instead, I would have called it that I am using
> > > >operational definitions.
> > > >
> > > >For example, as EVENTS occur in a universe, they become
> > > >available as a HISTORY. While the history may be the
> > > >same to every agent, each of those agents may build up
> > > >a different ontology of relationships among the facts in
> > > >that same history.
> > > >
> > > >No agent communicates their understanding of (ontology for)
> > > >history to any other agent; they just use their understandings
> > > >to guide their paths.
> > > >
> > > >Wittgenstein is most useful for discussing "levels of language"
> > > >and "levels of quotation", which is missing from most current
> > > >semantics work.
> > > >
> > > >Mike Brenner
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Adam Pease wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > My readings of Wittgenstein have been limited. I need to do
> > more. If
> > > > > we need to go into this deeply, I may need to call on my colleague,
>Ian
> > > > > Niles, who did most of the day-to-day work on SUMO, and whose PhD
> > work was
> > > > > on Wittgenstein. But anyway, I'll make a go at this.
> > > > > My understanding is that one of Wittgenstein's critiques of
> > metaphysics
> > > > > was that philosophers confuse language and logic and use formal
> > terms in
> > > > > place of linguistic ones, thereby using a term out of context, and
> > causing
> > > > > a fundamental error. If I've understood this, I agree with his
> > position
> > > > > completely. One benefit of modern metaphysics that wasn't
> > available until
> > > > > very recently was large formal theories like SUMO that provide formal
> > > > > definitions for formal terms. Up until recently, philosophers used
> > > > > linguistic tokens to signify formal terms, but those formal terms
> > were not
> > > > > defined axiomatically (in logic). Readers fell easily in the past
> > into the
> > > > > trap of imbuing those (undefined) formal terms with their normal
> > linguistic
> > > > > context.
> > > > > I'm confused by your terminology. Did Wittgenstein use those
> > particular
> > > > > phrases, "literal meaning" and "true meaning"? If I've understood you
> > > > > correctly, I would elaborate on "true meaning" to say that the phrase
> > > > > signifies the actual meaning of the linguistic element in the
> > context of
> > > > > communication. In that sense, the "true meaning" of a word may be
> > > > > expressed by a term in a sufficiently detailed formal
> > ontology. But then
> > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "literal meaning".
> > > > > Maybe an example would help make this a bit more concrete.
> > > > >
> > > > > "The man bought the shirt."
> > > > >
> > > > > Can be rendered formally in KIF and SUMO as
> > > > >
> > > > > (exists (?M ?B ?S)
> > > > > (and
> > > > > (instance ?M MaleHuman)
> > > > > (instance ?B Buying)
> > > > > (instance ?S Clothing)
> > > > > (agent ?B ?M)
> > > > > (patient ?B ?S)))
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that in the formal equivalent, what appear to be words are
> > actually
> > > > > just convenient symbols for terms that are defined axiomatically in
> > > > > SUMO. So, the true meaning of "bought" in the context of this
> > sentence is
> > > > > Buying in SUMO
> > <http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/concepts/_buying.html>, and
> > > > > not Death, as in the colloquialism "He bought the farm." or
> > Communication
> > > > > as in "He bought the argument."
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this help?
> > > > >
> > > > > Adam
> > > > >
> > > > > At 03:35 PM 6/5/2004 -0400, Mike Brenner wrote:
> > > > > >Hi Adam,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I am willing to accept that my question addresses linguistics,
> > > > > >and I hope you will help me out by telling me what word
> > > > > >the ontology community would use instead of my word
> > > > > >"literal meaning".
> > > > > >
> > > > > >By "literal meaning" I mean formal, precise, unambiguous, complete
> > > > > >definitions of the meaning of phrases/words. This is in contrast to
> > > > > >their "true meaning" which involves mapping those literal meaning
> > > > > >to multiple, partial contexts where the defintions are so
> > > > > >imprecise as to be only approximately correct, somewhat ambiguous,
> > > > > >and definitely incomplete.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I suspect that I don't know the difference between the semantic
> > > > > >meaning of phrases in linguistics and the semantic meaning
> > > > > >of phrases in ontology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >(My semantics mostly comes from Wittgenstein.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Since I want to clearly make this distinction in a way that
> > > > > >is most understandable to the people working on Ontology
> > > > > >tools, I would appreciate any help in correcting my vocabulary
> > > > > >to normalize it to the ontology used by the ontology community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Adam Pease wrote:
> > > > > > > I think you may be addressing linguistics, rather than
> > > > ontology. The
> > > > > > > notions of "literal" meaning only has significance in the
> > > > interpretation of
> > > > > > > linguistic objects. Ontology is concerned with formal
> > definition of
> > > > > > > precise and unambiguous terms. One way to address this issue is
>to
> > > > map a
> > > > > > > large lexicon to a formal ontology. Words with the same
> > meaning are
> > > > > > > clustered together. Polysemous words can appear in more than one
> > > > > > > cluster. That's what we've done in mapping the WordNet lexicon to
> > > > the SUMO
> > > > > > > ontology. <http://www.ontologyportal.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >mike brenner wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I would like to become familiar with ontology tools
> > > > > > > >capable of expressing more than simple "literal" meaning.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Mike Brenner
> > > > > >
> > > > > >_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > >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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >_________________________________________________________________
> > > >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
> > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|