On Aug 6, 2007, at 4:03 AM, Barker, Sean (UK) wrote:
> ...We suffer from identical syntax and allegedly identical
> semantics all
> the time in data exchange (ISO 10303), so I don't see why logic should
> be any difference. (01)
Is this really the same issue? The original post had to do with the
fact that one can choose different semantic foundations for one's
underlying *logic* -- e.g., classical vs some form of negation-as-
failure. Using different logics in different domains on the same
data can of course lead to different inferences, but *that* different
logics are being adopted in those domains is something that can be
known and (if necessary) planned for up front. (02)
The data exchange problem that you appear to be referring to (forgive
me if I'm mistaken) is that the intended meanings of terms used in
the data to be exchanged are often not fully specified. The latter
seems to me to be exactly the problem that ontologies are supposed to
solve, and may require a lot of work on both ends of an exchange
before the "semantics" of the data is nailed down. (03)
Chris Menzel (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)
|