ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer pizza (was ckae)

To: "Fabian Neuhaus" <fabian.neuhaus@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Barker, Sean (UK)" <Sean.Barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:01:41 +0100
Message-id: <E18F7C3C090D5D40A854F1D080A84CA44CD118@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>