ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Re: OWL and lack of identifiers

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:33:15 -0400
Message-id: <D2FFD70D-9E88-44F5-89BC-6BC59ADF1E98@xxxxxxxxx>
I'll let Steve "build the picture" around his words.  I just decided to throw in my quick 2 cents when your comment overlapped something I was recently discussing in another venue.

Ken

On Apr 15, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:

Clearly, I agree, and this is more or less what I said below.

My question was triggered by you saying that self-disclosing information 
*necessarily* includes disclosures of the context;  then the information 
about the context must either *necessarily* include disclosures on 
further context, or it is non-self-disclosing -- what would you mean by 
that?

Wacek

Ken Laskey wrote:
Communications is basically painting a picture.  I have an idea and I 
want you to comprehend my idea.  I look for things we have in common and 
I build my picture using the commonality as building blocks.  Sometimes, 
I have to build intermediate blocks in order to make my picture richer.  
You suggest other blocks and we iterate until we believe we have a 
common picture.  The picture is never complete but we stop when the 
picture is adequate for our joint purpose (or the purpose of the one of 
us who wants to get the most across -- you may stop looking while I'm 
still painting).  The infinite cycle ends when we are satisfied and 
choose to end it.

As an example, this thread continues because we are still painting the 
picture and a sufficient number of us want to make it more complete.

Ken

On Apr 15, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:

Re: Steve Newcomb's post on Topic Maps (14 Apr 2007 12:54:31)

An interesting post with lots of solid remarks.  I have one question, 
though.

You say:

All that the Topic Maps Reference Model is saying is that
self-disclosing information necessarily includes certain disclosure(s)
of the context(s) within which it expresses specific meaning(s).  The 
model does NOT require that anything in particular means anything in
particular.  Conformance to it merely means that opinions about the
meanings of particular expressions in particular contexts are
knowable.

If I understand what you're saying, the point is that an _expression_
should always be provided with a context in which it can/should be
interpreted.  With such a context, it is possible to find out what it is
that the _expression_ is intended to be a proxy of.

It appears to me that in most circumstances you will not be able to
provide the context, but rather a proxy, another _expression_ describing
the context.  Now we get the pains of infinite regress:  to know what
the context is, the _expression_ intended to be a proxy of the context has
to be provided with a context (another proxy, I guess), and so on.  With
a finite and ungrounded representational artifact, it means that it
would be impossible to interpret any _expression_.

The only way out that I can see is to assume, at some iteration, that
the interpreter will itself/himself/herself interpret the _expression_ (be
it the primary _expression_ or any of its context-...-contexts) in the
correct way, that is, that the interpreter is able to (or is forced to,
by its nature) apply the correct context.

But if such assumption has to be made, then I see no reason, in
principle, for why it would be reasonable to assume that the interpreter
can apply the correct context for interpreting an _expression_'s context
_expression_, but it/he/she cannot apply the correct context for
interpreting the primary _expression_ without it being enclosed in a
context-_expression_.

Could you justify your point?  (Or explain where I am wrong, if I am.)

Regards,
Wacek

-- 
Wacek Kusnierczyk

------------------------------------------------------
Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
7027 Trondheim
Norway

tel.   0047 73591875
fax    0047 73594466
------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Wacek Kusnierczyk

------------------------------------------------------
Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
7027 Trondheim
Norway

tel.   0047 73591875
fax    0047 73594466
------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Config: 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508





------------------------------------------------------------------------


_________________________________________________________________


-- 
Wacek Kusnierczyk

------------------------------------------------------
Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
7027 Trondheim
Norway

tel.   0047 73591875
fax    0047 73594466
------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508





_________________________________________________________________
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>