Fabian,
thanks, that explains a lot (and not only about the definitions) (01)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK (02)
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. (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fabian Neuhaus [mailto:fabian.neuhaus@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 31 August 2007 16:04
> To: Barker, Sean (UK)
> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer pizza
> (was ckae)
>
>
> Sean,
>
> Unfortunately, the distinction between semantics and
> pragmatics is not so clear cut.
>
> Let's assume I observe how you go into a shop and you say to
> the shopman "I want to buy a cleat. A cleat is a piece of
> rope work." Let's further assume that the shopman sells you
> the cleat without saying any word.
>
> - If I study the truth-conditions of the sentence "A cleat is
> a piece of rope work" and how the words that you used relate
> to reality, then I am studying semantics.
> - If I study the curious fact that the sound waves that you
> produce in this situation can cause a sequence of actions of
> the clerk and you (the clerk goes to his store room, fetches
> an object, goes back, shows you the object, you approve, he
> takes your money, you take the object), then I am studying
> the pragmatics of your utterance. This is the aspect of
> pragmatics is concerned with the relation between utterances
> and actions, in this case the utterance of "I want to buy a
> cleat" is the action of ordering an object and this is
> initiating a rule governed sequence of behaviors that is
> finalized with an exchange of money for a product. Other
> example of "how you can do things with words" is calling
> somebody names or the utterance of "Will you marry me?" in
> the right context. In one you are insulting someone, in the
> other one you proposed; both are actions even in the legal sense.
> - An example for a not so clear cut case is if one wants to
> study the truth-conditions of the sentence "I want to buy a
> cleat". This is not within the realm of semantics, because
> the term "I" refers to the speaker. And -- per definition --
> everything which is about the relation between words and a
> speaker is within the domain of pragmatics. This is an
> example where pragmatics would not be concerned with behavior.
>
> I should say that the boundary between pragmatics and
> semantics is notoriously fuzzy. As a student I attended a
> seminar where we studied different definitions of "semantics"
> and "pragmatics". Its a long time ago and I forgot almost
> everything except there was no consensus among linguists and
> that all proposals had their weaknesses.
>
> The only people who made up their mind are logicians:
> according to them whatever aspect of 'meaning' they can
> analyze with the help of a model theory is semantics,
> everything else is pragmatics. This is the garbage can
> definition of "pragmatics". :-)
>
> Best
> Fabian
>
>
>
>
> Barker, Sean (UK) wrote:
> > Fabian,
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > 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: 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> (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)
|