This is a great discussion and right into the heart of a problem we
currently fight with while defining a management language to be used to
share information within and about a system. To cope with this, we used the
Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_conceptual_interoperability), which
tries to add to this discussion. In a nutshell, we interpret the layers as
follows: based on connectivity between systems (technical interoperability:
we can exchange something), we use syntax to structure the words and - in
case of technical systems - terms and/or expressions (syntactical
interoperability). Semantics give word sense - for systems in form of a
thesaurus or dictionary or data model. Pragmatics gives the intention and
the context in which the expression is used. We add dynamics (does the
system know how sending and receiving system will change based on the
information sent/received) and conceptual interoperability (models are
purposeful abstractions of reality, so in order to align them, we have to
capture the assumptions).
Regarding this discussion: syntax=structure, sematics=(word) meaning,
pragmatics=context
============================== ;-)
Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Old Dominion University (01)
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 08/02/2007 03:01:10 PM: (02)
> A minor comment on Leo's postscript:
>
> > This stuff also suggests that for at least natural
> > languages (potentially formalizable as formal languages), there are two
> > notions (relations): 1) sense (a relation between the word and the
> > "semantic sense" or "word sense", e.g., "tank" as wordsense1, military
> > vehicle), and 2)denotation (what the word refers to once the sense is
> > chosen, in the real world). Pragmatics adds a third notion: what did
> > the user intend? I.e., semantics in context.
>
> "Pragmatics", in this sense, is truly orthogonal, in that it applies to
both
> of the other two dimensions. In my experience, the "pragmatic" use of a
term
> may involve a clear change/refinement of the "word sense" (Sinn), but in
many
> cases it is much less clear what the intended word sense is, but it is
clear
> what the intended referents (Bedeutung) are.
>
> The other observation is that "pragmatics" depends on a shared
connotative
> space, usually in both the real world and the conceptual world. And the
> shared connotative space is a *presumed* "base" of common knowledge,
common
> belief, and common analogy. It seems to defy effective formal treatment,
and
> I suspect this is because some part of the presumption, the beliefs and
the
> analogies are in fact false and nonetheless pragmatically useful.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ (03)
> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|