Randall, (01)
Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Saturday 21 July 2007 12:59, 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
>>
>
> If this is the statement it seems to be, namely one of complete
> pessimism about the entire Semantic Web endeavor (and apparently, any
> form of computational intelligence), what motivates your participation
> in this forum?
>
>
I am sure Azamat will formulate his own response but I can answer for
myself since I share the opinion that there is no "universal ontology." (02)
First, I don't think belief in a universal ontology has anything to do
with "computational intelligence." It certainly is irrelevant to any
claims of human intelligence, the possessors of which have been
demonstrated to believe in any number of ontologies, perhaps even
contradictory ones. (03)
Second, and more pragmatically, if a client finds that use of "Semantic
Web" technologies provides a useful result for whatever purpose they
have in mind, what is their (or my) belief in a universal ontology have
to do with it? Or the connection of such a universal ontology to "real"
meaning? Interesting questions for a coffee shop discussion but has
little to do with the results that motivate clients to pay for services. (04)
I say all that because the topic maps community has spent years (not as
many as the ontology community) hand wringing over the "big" issues when
the real questions that needed answering were what result does the use
of topic maps enable that isn't otherwise available and how does than
answer the needs of user X? (05)
Granted, I take that position because I think meaning is in the eyes of
the user (cf. reader response criticism and Stanley Fish) but I also
suspect that pragmatically speaking, the question that any semantic
technology has to answer is of what use is it to the user in question?
It's formal correctness and answering the "big" questions won't save a
technology that has no real payoff for users. (06)
I participate because I wanted to learn the terminology and thinking
that underlies current ontology efforts. Whether those efforts are
"true" in some absolute sense of the world isn't a question that I worry
about. How those efforts may or may not have benefits for users,
however, is a question that concerns me. (07)
Hope you are having a great day! (08)
Patrick (09)
> Randall Schulz
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> (010)
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300) (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|