ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and

To: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@xxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Frank Manola <fmanola@xxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:21:39 +0300
Message-id: <003d01c7cbdd$20bc70e0$010aa8c0@homepc>
Frank,
Usually I attentively read any Pat's statements, like J. Sowa and others. 
But this statement, "Formal meaning is just a mathematical curiosity and has 
nothing to do with Real Meanings (the kind that really Matter in Human 
Discourse in Society, or whatever), is the cry of the soul, as we say in 
Russia (may be in other places as well).
The implicit point is here that we need to view Ontology as a formal science 
of the world and its workings, providing Real Meanings for human concepts 
and terms.
Azamat
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@xxxxxxx>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "SW-forum" <semantic-web@xxxxxx>; "[ontolog-forum]" 
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and LinkedData    (01)


>
> Azamat--
>
> The following is the original quotation, including the preceding  sentence 
> which provides some of the "context" I mentioned:
>
>> The point is rather to
>> avoid an argument in the other direction, an argument that I suspect
>> may never have even occurred to you (it hadnt to me until I got
>> involved in this debate), along the following lines:
>>
>> "Formal meaning is just a mathematical curiosity and has nothing to
>> do with Real Meanings (the kind that really Matter in Human Discourse
>> in Society, or whatever), so whenever any formal inferences are done,
>> the formal conclusions lose all their Real Meaning and are just
>> mathematical curiosities of no real significance, devoid of any Real
>> Meaning content outside some narrow abstract mathematical domain."
>
> Do you seriously claim that that preceding sentence, saying as it  does 
> that the quoted material is an argument to *avoid*, isn't  relevant to the 
> proper understanding of what was said?  As far as  your comment on the 
> Semantic Web, of course there have to be "Real  Meanings".  As John Sowa 
> points out (and as Pat notes in his original  message), they have to be 
> mapped to the formal structures, just as  they do in any other kind of 
> formal reasoning.
>
> --Frank
>
> On Jul 21, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Azamat wrote:
>
>> Rarely have i seen such obtusness. Pat has said many interesting  things, 
>> but this statement reflects the whole point of the Semantic  Web. No Real 
>> Meanings, no Semantic Web, or  no  Universal Ontology,  no Intelligent 
>> Web. That's it.
>> Azamat
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@xxxxxxx>
>> To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@xxxxxx>; "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog- 
>> forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 10:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and 
>> LinkedData
>>
>>
>>> Rarely have I seen a better example of the dangers of quoting out  of 
>>> context.
>>>
>>> --Frank
>>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Azamat wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Formal meaning is just a mathematical curiosity and has nothing to
>>>> do with Real Meanings (the kind that really Matter in Human  Discourse
>>>> in Society, or whatever), so whenever any formal inferences are  done,
>>>> the formal conclusions lose all their Real Meaning and are just
>>>> mathematical curiosities of no real significance, devoid of any Real
>>>> Meaning content outside some narrow abstract mathematical 
>>>> domain."-----  Original Message ----- From: "Pat Hayes" 
>>>> <phayes@xxxxxxx>
>>>> To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: <chris@xxxxxxxx>; <linking-open-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;  <semantic- 
>>>> web@xxxxxx>; <www-tag@xxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:34 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and 
>>>> LinkedData
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: noah_mendelsohn@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture  and 
>>>>>> LinkedData
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:55:54 -0400
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I believe, however, that what we're discussing here is not  just 
>>>>>>> any old
>>>>>>>  RDF statment.  If I had made a statement that "the sky is   green", 
>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>  might reasonable express the opinion "no, I think Noah has  set 
>>>>>>> out a false
>>>>>>>  statement."  The case we're discussing is different, I  think. 
>>>>>>> Tim is, I
>>>>>>>  believe, responsible for the association between the URI
>>>>>>>  http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i and a resource,  or  we 
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>  assume for the sake of argument that W3C has delegated that 
>>>>>>> responsibility
>>>>>>>  to him.  Tim states that the resource so designated is  himself, 
>>>>>>> then he is
>>>>>>>  not offering an opinion: he is stating a fact about the   resource 
>>>>>>> that he
>>>>>>>  has chosen to identify with this URI.  The dbpedia folks may 
>>>>>>> similarly
>>>>>>>  establish authoritative associations between the URIs they 
>>>>>>> control and
>>>>>>>  resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Noah
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what observable consequences come from this within a 
>>>>>> computational
>>>>>> system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly statements like "the sky is green"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ex:sky ex:colour ex:green .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> have consequences.  For example, if added to functionality of  the 
>>>>>> colour
>>>>>> propery and uniqueness of colour objects, it is inconsistent  with 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> sky being blue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, what consequences can come from the association  between  a 
>>>>>> URI
>>>>>> and a (non-information) resource?  I can't think of any, and  if 
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> aren't any then what is the point of arguing about the status  of 
>>>>>> such
>>>>>> associations?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can think of many of them. Of course, they may not be  *logical* 
>>>>> consequences. See
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/ 
>>>>> 0196.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>> --
>>>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>>>>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416   office
>>>>> Pensacola (850)202 4440   fax
>>>>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667    cell
>>>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>     (02)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (03)

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