Fabian, (01)
If I use part description to help the storeman check he is
getting the right part out of the store, I seem to be dealing in
pragmatics, if I concern myself with the way words talk about to the
world, I'm into semantics. That is, pragmatics is about behaviour and
semantics about mappings, and which I use depends on what I am trying to
do. Have I understood you correctly? (02)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK (03)
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. (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Fabian Neuhaus
> Sent: 30 August 2007 18:29
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer pizza
> (was ckae)
>
>
> Sean,
> I think that your example does not support your argument.
> Your example shows that "cleat" is used ambiguously, namely
> it is used by designers to refer to a small metal tie and by
> the naval community to refer to a piece of rope work. Since
> the ambiguity concerns the relation between a word and its
> denotation in the world, this is within the realm of
> semantics. Pragmatics is about the relationship of language
> expressions to the speaker and listener and the use of
> languages. Typical topics that are studied under the label
> "pragmatics" in linguistics are the use of pronouns and
> deictic expressions. Further, differences in `meaning'
> that does not have any effect on truth-conditions are studied
> in pragmatics. For example, "Fabian is a German" and "Fabian
> is a Kraut"
> have both the same truth-conditions, thus the semantics of
> them is the same. However, there is a pragmatic difference,
> since 'Kraut' is supposed to be pejorative.
>
> > My view, more precisely, is that
> > anything called semantics must be grounded in pragmatics to
> make sense.
>
> I am not sure whether I agree with this statement. If you
> just mean that a language has no semantics if it is not used,
> then this is certainly true. However, if you mean that
> semantics cannot be studied independently from pragmatics I
> disagree. The situation is somehow analogous to the
> relationship between biology and chemistry: all biological
> processes are grounded in chemical processes and many
> biological processes can only be explained by referring to
> chemical processes. Nevertheless, many topics in biology can
> be studied without dealing with chemistry. Analogously, the
> semantics of expressions of a language are grounded in their
> use, and there is some overlap between semantics and
> pragmatics, e.g. in the case of statements that involve
> deictic expressions or pronouns. But there are certain areas
> where semantics of languages can be studied independently
> from their pragmatics. This is true for natural languages,
> and much more so for formal languages like the ones used for
> ontologies or information technology applications.
>
> Best
> Fabian
>
>
> Barker, Sean (UK) wrote:
> > John
> >
> > Thanks for your patience. My view, more precisely, is
> that anything
> > called semantics must be grounded in pragmatics to make sense.
> > If semantics has a use, it is in creating systems of terms, and
> > structuring their differentia. I would explicitly reject
> the idea that
> > a single term taken in isolation has any semantics other than those
> > exhibited through the pragmatics, if only because terms
> themselves are
> > differential - definition goes by genus and species.
> >
> > The reason I want to insist on this is that, in data exchange,
> > insisting on merely "defining" terms is a fast route to failure.
> > Success comes only when one has compared the way different
> > organizations use terms. Definitions are not a substitute for due
> > diligence. They only work where one is assured of a common culture.
> > For example, many companies have to translate part
> descriptions used
> > by designers into NATO standard technology. One example: in
> one design
> > office, the term "cleat" was used to refer to a small metal tie
> > connecting two components together, whereas the official NATO
> > definition of cleat is a piece of rope work. One of my colleagues
> > observed that cleat is usually a naval term, and has suggested that
> > this term came into the aircraft industry from one of the
> old flying
> > boat manufacturers, which was itself originally shipyard.
> >
> > From a project management viewpoint, in a data exchange
> project, this
> > is the most important thing you must say, and you must say
> it on day
> > one. Otherwise you run the risk that the customer will treat the
> > project as a technical problem, and fail to commit the effort that
> > they need to put in to validate and test the exchange - this can be
> > 70-90% of the project costs.
> >
> > The ontology and Semantic Web worlds would be well
> advised to look
> > seriously at the data exchange world. Despite the technical
> > limitations of data modelling, data exchange is extensively used in
> > the engineering industries, however this did not happen before they
> > had done a great deal of work trying to get it right. Several years
> > ago, the estimated government and industrial investment just to
> > develop the STEP series of standards stood at $400,000,000. To get
> > industrial acceptance, ontology based systems will need to prove as
> > reliable and more cost effective than data model based approaches.
> > Currently, this is not the case.
> >
> > I should also note that in discussions with other people in the
> > European aerospace industry, the idea that information interchange
> > should be based on pragmatics is uncontroversial.
> >
> > Sean Barker
> > Bristol, UK
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: 30 August 2007 03:55
> >> To: Barker, Sean (UK)
> >> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer pizza (was
> >> ckae)
> >>
> >>
> >> *** 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.
> >>
> >> Sean,
> >>
> >> I'm glad that you found the 3-way distinction helpful, but
> I want to
> >> emphasize three very important points:
> >>
> >> 1. It is possible to have syntax by itself without semantics or
> >> pragmatics. That would be a purely uninterpreted notation
> >> with no meaning other than to create strings of symbols.
> >>
> >> 2. It is possible to have syntax and semantics without
> pragmatics.
> >> That would be a pure description of something, such as a list
> >> of observed data with no indication of what to do.
> >>
> >> 3. For any practical language of any use in engineering, it is
> >> essential to have all three: syntax, semantics, and
> pragmatics.
> >>
> >> SB> I shall keep to Pragmatics in future, believing as I do that
> >> > Semantics is a useful heuristic....
> >>
> >> No. You cannot do pragmatics without having syntax and semantics.
> >>
> >> It's impossible to say anything without syntax. It's
> impossible to
> >> refer to anything without semantics. And it's impossible to do
> >> anything pragmatically without being able to make statements
> >> (syntax) that refer to something (semantics).
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ********************************************************************
> > 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.
> > ********************************************************************
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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/
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|