Chris (01)
The key sentence is the next one: (02)
"Its only when we ground the semantics of the data in the behaviour of
the application/organization that we have any hope of success, and then
only after a long and painful process of testing." (03)
The point being that the terms of the definition need to be linked to
real behaviour, and not to an interpretation of a model, since the
objective of the exchange is always to get the organizations to work
together, not to get the computers to agree that they could work
together because they have compatible models. (04)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK (05)
This mail is publicly posted to a distribution list as part of a process
of public discussion, any automatically generated statements to the
contrary non-withstanding. It is the opinion of the author, and does not
represent an official company view. (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Christopher Menzel
> Sent: 06 August 2007 14:33
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either
> from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (07)
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
******************************************************************** (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|