On Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:55 PM, Golda Velez wrote:
> I think assuming that definitions are factual rather than personal
> representations of reality is one of > the reasons that there has been
> some problems getting domain ontologies created. I
> remember reading a quote from a US Senator, that whoever is in charge of
> the
> definitions wins the argument. Rules and definitions beg for discussion
> in
> any field that is under 100 years old... (01)
I was surprised that the issues of definition, its nature, kinds, meaning,
demonstration, and formalization, has not received a separate thread and
careful discussion both on the semantic web and ontology forums. Since it is
hardly to find another notion so decisive for ontology and semantic web
...and so muddled and vague. For currently the definitions [as giving the
meanings of expressions, symbols, constructs, or things] might be
constructed by reference to: (02)
classification or dichotomy (classificatory definition); (03)
properties (genus&differentia) (essential definition); (04)
parts, accidental properties (ostensive definition) (05)
context (contextual definition); (06)
cause, genesis, origin (genetic or genealogical definition); (07)
end or purpose (stipulative definition); (08)
interest (pragmatic definition); (09)
common use (dictionary definition); (010)
induction (recursive definition); (011)
intension (connotation) (intensional or connotative definition); (012)
extension (denotation) (extensional definition). (013)
Such inconsistency of definition is a cause of diverse views of meaning
itself, which is defined as in: (014)
idea, thought or intention; (015)
operation, measurement, and computation; (016)
usage, utility; (017)
truth condition; (018)
sense, intension, connotation, content; (019)
reference, extension, denotation; (020)
sense and reference together. (021)
A definition may be qualified as consistent and contradictory, true or
false, arbitrary or real, proved or unproved, accidental or essential,
formal or material, nominal or real. (022)
It is stated that many axioms of the sciences, formal and theoretical, are
nothing but definitions in disguise. That definition is formal and precise
unlike description, explanation, interpretation. And that formally it is a
kind of an equivalence relation where the left side (the definiendum, that
which is to be defined) is a function of the right side (definiens, that
which defines, determines, specifies). (023)
The most prospective method of defining seems to be a semantic real
definition, where the definition involves the primary meaning (key
denotation cum major connotation) of a word, a phrase, a symbol, a concept
or an entity, so that it states the nature of the object defined and is
convertible with its subject. The semantic definition is a relatively stable
construct. Although, it is liable to the controlled redefinition as far as
the knowledge of the world progresses, but this updating should not be
something unpredicted or unforeseen, a radically new definition. (024)
There is an example of motherhood, the family relationship between an
offspring and the female parent. Presently, a child may have mothers as
diverse as natural mother, biological mother, adopting mother, step mother,
surrogate mother, cloning mother, etc. When we use a standard nominal
definition of mother as {''a woman giving birth to a child''), we are
missing all possible kinds of motherhood. When we use a real definition (''a
woman parenting (producing, begetting or raising) a child''), verified by
experimentation, we can cover all the key senses of motherhood. (025)
Re ''the personal representations of reality'', being a sort of nominal
definitions and usually having nothing to do with the nature of things, such
definitions are not harmful as far as they used for specific personal
purposes, but most harmful then presented as the scientific and objective
definitions. One may define erotica as '' a creative activity to stimulate a
reproductive activity'', capitalism as '' an economic system based on
exploitation and profiteering'', political party as ''an organization to
gain power by revolution'', business as ''a commercial activity to
profiteer'', etc., thus creating an unreal world. (026)
The same reasoning applies to defining ontology, ontological classes,
computing ontology, ontology engineering, ontology languages and tools,
semantics, semantic concepts, semantic systems, semantic web, semantic web
technologies, etc. (027)
Here I met a conference definition of semantic interoperability as ‘’the
common automatic interpretation of the meaning of the exchanged information,
i.e. the ability to automatically process the information in a
machine-understandable manner.’’ Now I wonder what sort of definition it
might be: nominal, extensional, pragmatic, ostensive. (028)
azamat abdoullaev (029)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (030)
|