Re: [ontolog-forum] semantic definition

[jayanosy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Abdoul,

Thanks so much for the very informative
and comprehensive ideas. They truly inform one about the scope of ontologies,
the concept of information sharing for further classification and inferences
in multiple ontologies, determining when adding instances to an ontology
for classification and inference purposes is consistent with a contributor's
perception, and  informing others about ontologies not consistent
with real world perceptions by a community. Here are some thoughts I have
been tring to udnerstand about the use of ontologies.

Here are some example classifications
of myself, which I believe would result in further ontologies to enable
inferences to be made in each domain of discourse. 

I am a(n) human being, live being, father,
husband, employee, engineer,  EE, U.S. citizen, male, voracious reader,
tennis player, political activist, moderately healthy person, investor,
Chair of NCOIC working group, happily married person, qualified driver,
registered voter, taxpaying citizen, lover of literature, chief architect,
systems engineer, amateur gardener, transplanted New Englander in Texas,
  tea drinker, wine lover, honest person...


We as humans don't seem to have a significant
problem with accepting and using these terms to classify someone and inferring
all kinds of other knowledge about that classification for that person
so classified, once a dialog is established to place the classification
in some context and the appropriateness of the classification, e.g., some
ontology for instance. 

Is not an ontology such a system for
classifying real world objects and enabling all kinds of inferences to
be possible as a result of being a member of that classification in the
ontology model?

Different classifications in different
ontology models will have different inferences appropriate for that model.
Most of the above classifications probably have different ontology models
depending on other related classification concepts. I hope that the linking
of common points such as Person across these models may enable inferences
to be made about the same referent in different ontologies, once the appropriate
instances associated with other concepts in these ontologies are populated
for the original instance.

My understanding is that a good ontology
would represent some form of accepted social knowledge about a classification
concept in some context, thus enabling personal perceptions to be placed
in a larger social ontology model of semantic interpretation. I imagine
each person would then determine whether the larger social ontology models
is consistent with their own ontology model, and if not then inform others
about this disagreement.

I can imagine all kinds of situations
where an ontology is not inconsistent with a person's perspective, but
the ontology is not sufficient for the communicative purposes of the person
sharing information. 

This leads to the interesting problem
of how to share information about a perceived real world object in a manner
with minimal classifications, so that it can be further classified according
to the domain of interest by other classifiers, of course with the assistance
of the original perception.




Best Regards,
John A. Yanosy Jr.

Cell: 214-336-9875
PH: 972-705-1807
Email: JAYANOSY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

03/08/2008 01:34 PM

Please respond to
"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"Golda Velez" <gv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	'SW-forum' <semantic-web@xxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	[ontolog-forum] semantic definition

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...

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:

classification or dichotomy (classificatory definition);

properties (genus&differentia) (essential definition);

parts, accidental properties (ostensive definition)

context (contextual definition);

cause, genesis, origin (genetic or genealogical definition);

end or purpose (stipulative definition);

interest (pragmatic definition);

common use (dictionary definition);

induction (recursive definition);

intension (connotation) (intensional or connotative definition);

extension (denotation) (extensional definition).


Such inconsistency of definition is a cause of diverse views of meaning
itself, which is defined as in:

idea, thought or intention;

operation, measurement, and computation;

usage, utility;

truth condition;

sense, intension, connotation, content;

reference, extension, denotation;

sense and reference together.

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.


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).



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.



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.



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.

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.

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.



azamat abdoullaev





 

 
_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)