Jon, Rick, and Azamat, (01)
I agree with Jon's comment: (02)
JA> Q. What, then, is the best alternative to OWL and triple-based
> languages in general for processing semantic information about the world?
>
> A. Ordinary logic and ordinary mathematics are still the best languages. (03)
But "ordinary logic and ordinary mathematics" cover an enormous range
of notations and variations. That is the main reason for developing the
Common Logic standard as a superset of many current logic-based systems. (04)
The body of the CL standard uses an abstract syntax that could be
expressed in an open-ended number of concrete syntaxes, which include
the traditional Peirce-Peano algebraic notation for logic, Peirce's
existential graphs, and many other computer-oriented notations. (05)
Annexes A, B, and C of the standard present three concrete "dialects"
of CL: CLIF, CGIF, and an XML-based notation for CL. But any of the
notations shown in the following diagram (plus many more) could be used
at both the human interface and the machine interface: (06)
http://www.jfsowa.com/figs/comlog.gif (07)
JA> With a dash of semiotic information theory thrown in for good
> measure — (08)
I certainly agree with that. Peirce's semiotics bridges the gap
between natural languages and the formal notations of logic and math.
It also provides guidelines for analyzing any subject and expressing
it in the vague initial stages and later formalized stages. I discussed
those stages in the following talk: (09)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/cmapping.pdf
Concept Mapping (010)
RM> Many thanks for your comments John. You'll be pleased to know, a few
> weeks ago in a W3C workshop when Tim BL positioned RDF/OWL as THE WAY, I
> gave him more than an earful. He was very gracious about it. When we
> talked later, he was a bit defensive, but I recognized his sincere
> interest in the discussion. (011)
I'm very pleased to hear that there may be some recognition that
more is needed. (012)
But Azamat, I'm not sure what you mean: (013)
AA> Moreover [OWL] has nothing to do with a real ontology, being just
> a formal logical language, thus coming as a rather ineffective
> standard language for ''processing the semantic information about
> the world'', bringing more confusion than clarity. (014)
I certainly agree that much more is needed than just a logical
formalism. Among those things are ontologies, and methods for
analyzing natural languages and mapping them to a computable form. (015)
AA> ... expecting more sophisticated development to ground the formalism
> to reality. (016)
As Jon mentioned, semiotics is a more general framework, which
includes signs of all kinds, including both natural languages and
formal languages within its scope plus the methods of science for
analyzing reality and expressing it in signs of any kind. (017)
John (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|
