Patrick, could you elaborate on your reference to Stanley Fish? (01)
Thank you, Jack (02)
Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 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.
>> 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."
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
> Hope you are having a great day!
>> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)