It is great that John brings up the CSP's semiotics question !
Suppose there must be made some further steps in this direction.
Look at the "3. Mid-range objectives." part of a paper -
http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it/21abreast.htm (01)
Leonid Ototsky - http://paterleo.wikispaces.com (02)
> Duane,
>
> I had a thought looking at your contextual example of data element named
> "FirstNameOfParty". You note that an instance
> is slightly different if it occurs within a hierarchy of
> //PurchaseOrder/BuyerParty vs.
> //PurchaseOrder/SellerParty even though the semantics of the lone data
> element do not change.
>
> It seemed to me that one might argue that it differs for pragmatic reasons
> as John Sowa (JFS) discussed in this exchange:
>
> JFS>> The pragmatics, of course, is how the sheet is supposed to be
> >> interpreted by a performer.
>
> JAS> Not quite. The pragmatics is how the sheet music is in fact
> > performed. It is almost never clear from spots on a page how
> > the music is to sound.
>
> John continued ---
> As I said in previous messages, the terms 'syntax', 'semantics',
> and 'pragmatics' are watered-down versions of Peirce's semiotics.
>
> CSP actually made very precise distinctions about the 'interpretant'
> of a sign as intended by the speaker (or person who wrote, drew,
> built, arranged, sculpted, etc.) and 'interpretant' by the listener
> (or the one who views, feels, smells, tastes, etc.) the sign.
>
> CSP was very clear about the fact that the speaker and listener
> can interpret the same sign in very different ways -- and
> sometimes the interpreter may have a much more elaborate
> interpretation than the one who generated the sign.
>
> Gary Berg-Cross
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Duane Nickull
> Sent: Wed 9/5/2007 12:12 PM
> To: Pat Hayes
> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer pizza (was ckae)
>
>
>
> Pat:
>
> Pet Hayes Schreibt:
>>>Semantics is always contextual.
>
>>Nonsense. Fortunately; because if it were true, semantics would be
>> impossible.
>>This assertion is like the idea that all
>>assertions are contexual. It sounds plausible,
>>but that 'all' makes it (literally) incoherent.
>
> In general, I suspect I should have not used the "always" word but I still
> believe that the context in which an instance of something occurs has a
> great deal of impact on the semantics (what the thing means), albeit
> perhaps
> not in 100% of instances. My grammar is generally bad.
>
> My memories are actually relevant in the subject of semantics given it is
> I
> who was the recipient of the signal (diver down flag). I see and
> interpret/
> infer something from the flag (BTW - I did study semaphore and do know the
> signal from a mariner perspective as well).
>
>
>>> Semantics cannot exist without including the aspect of context.
>>
>> That is simply obviously false, since it does so
>> exist and has done for maybe 70 years now.
>
> Perhaps I worded this wrong. Context is perhaps part of inference. When
> one (human, computer, dog, other) encounters a symbol/syntax instance,
> there
> is an inference process. We all draw meaning of some form at some level
> of
> awareness (raising in tuple store based on impact perhaps). That is
> perhaps
> not part of declared semantics but I would still think if is relevant.
>
>
>> This word "context" has been the cause of more
>> wasted time in KR than almost any other. It is a
>> deep tar-pit, not the least reason being that it
>> is itself thoroughly contextual, ie it can be
>> used to mean almost anything. There are many,
>> many problems with the idea that ontology
>> meanings are contextual.
> Disagree that it is a complete waste of time given there are important
> lessons learned. Several papers and efforts have declared that it is an
> open ended rathole and computationally too expansive to contemplate. Even
> the UN/CEFACT CCTS project which had a mere 8 context modifiers in its
> framework could potentially have a very large number of semantic values.
> It
> is not even known at what level of granularity to determine a difference.
> The CCCTS work could have 8 modifiers, each with values of up to 3000
> enumerations or an extremely large number.
>
> In general, I have no idea how to solve this issue but have worked enough
> on
> XML artifacts to know that semantic declarations without context do not
> work
> for all purposes.
>
> An example - imagine a data element named "FirstNameOfParty". An instance
> is slightly different if it occurs within a hierarchy of
> //PurchaseOrder/BuyerParty vs. //PurchaseOrder/SellerParty even though the
> semantics of the lone data element do not change.
>
> The semantics of each data element were declared in an attempt to allow
> cognitive applications to automatically suggest mappings from one format
> to
> another (in this case EDI to CBL). The UBL effort immediately recognized
> that context is utterly essential to the process as the context in which
> something occurs affects many aspects of its semantics.
>
>
>>There are extremely good
>> reasons why any encoding of meaning in a
>> formalism *intended to be used and archived on a
>> network* should NOT be contextual (see
>> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/ikl/guide/guide.html#LogicForInt
>> ). Moreover, we have found in the IKRIS work that
>> any formalism which incorporates contexts can be
>> mapped without loss of meaning into the
>> context-free IKL formalism (by treating contexts
>> as entities in the ontology itself, if necessary.
>> But even that is usually more trouble than it is
>> worth.)
> Thanks for this - I'll take a look as I have an interest in this.
>>
>> KR work has been grappling with contextuality and
>> contextual representations for over a decade now.
>> The results are in, IMO, and they are negative.
>
> I agree that the results are less than optimistic. CCTS, UBL and several
> researchers have all noted similar issues with the context.
>
> Duane
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|