Re: [ontolog-forum] Role of definitions (Remember the poor human)

["Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John -

This is a really good discussion!

You wrote...

The major difficulty with #3 is that there is no single "real
world meaning" for most words in English or any other natural
language.  I believe that Wittgenstein's language games provide
a basis for characterizing the multiple meanings of any word

Whenever anyone mentions this kind of thing, I like to refer to Tom Stoppard's stage play about the Wittgenstinian uses of language.  During the play, the audience are taught entirely new meanings for many English words, through the device of illustrating the meanings by actions on stage.  By the end of the play, the audience knows that, to insult someone, you call them a "bicycle".  To mortally insult them, you call them a "tricycle".  It's fun, but with a point that's relevant for our discussion here.

The point is, that one can usefully use English sentences in unexpected ways, so long as the way in which they are used is somehow grounded.  In Stoppard's case, the grounding is in actions on the stage.  In the case of Attempto Controlled English and similar systems, the grounding is in a dictionary of sorts.  In the case of Internet Business Logic [1], the grounding happens by assigning English headings to tables of data.  You can try this by writing something idiosyncratic into a browser, running it, and seeing that it works.  English explanations of the results will contain your idiosyncracies. 

Of course, this is a way of going around some deep research problems about Natural Language, rather than confronting them.  But it may be very useful.

                                                 Cheers,    -- Adrian

[1] Internet Business Logic   Online at www.reengineeringllc.com   Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering

On 2/13/07, Smith, Barry <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>I would prefer that we don't say that names are "defined". Very few
>ontology languages provide for actual definitions of names, and
>several that once did (notably KIF) no longer do. Explicit
>definitions are semantically troublesome, practically of no actual
>use, create paradoxes, and generally have negative utility. The
>entire SWeb apparatus has no definitions in it anywhere, nor is it
>likely to in the future. It is very hard to even see what it would
>mean to define a globally useable name. Let us just say that names
>occur in ontologies, and ontologies constrain the meaning of names.
>
>Pat

From my experience working with biologists and medical researchers
on ontologies, definitions (ideally both natural language definitions
and equivalent formal definitions) play a very useful role when it
comes to ensuring that ontologies are populated in consistent ways
across disciplines and subsequently used correctly (or indeed at all)
in practical applications. Most of those involved in such use will
not have logical or computer science expertise. Where else should
they turn to find out what a term means?
BS




_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto: ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)