And smoke could be a signal (smoke signal) which could also be a symbol that
there is trouble, or a celebration. (01)
SGIS
Antoinette Arsic
Sr. Systems Engineer
8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 100
Vienna, VA 22182
703-506-8621
443-567-2703
aarsic@xxxxxxxx
www.SGIS.com
________________________________________
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sean Barker
[sean.barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:21 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of signs (02)
Azmat (03)
In Mythologies, Roland Barthes distinguished between signs, symbols and
myths. If I remember correctly, a sign corresponds to what it signifies, as
smoke is a sign that there is a fire; a symbol is a convention for what is
signified, like the logo's* on products; and a myth is a cultural construct
invoking nexus of values and idea - the face of Einstein for the myth of
genius, or Marilyn Monroe as the myth of female sexuality. (04)
The idea of myth has proved useful in systems analysis, since user terms are
often charged with unvoiced expectations, and delivery of only what is
explicitly stated is seen by the users as a failure. The job of the
analysist is to 'demythologise', to expose the expectations and make them
explicit. This has been particularly true for data modelling, and I would
expect to deal with the same problems with ontologies. (05)
BTW: in the SOA world, I suspect the service to provide a new myth - how a
nice, cool presentation hides an exploding spaghetti of technological
confusion. (06)
*Logos might be a more correct spelling, but Logos is a highly charged word
when dealing with myths. (07)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
Sent: 16 July 2008 17:13
To: Bernard Vatant
Cc: 'SW-forum'; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of signs (09)
*** WARNING *** (010)
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. (011)
On Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:39 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> As said for quite a while, we need an ontology of signs. You can see a
first cut of it at http://www.lingvoj.org/semio.rdf Very early release
intended to attract feedback, criticisms and questions. Certainly too raw
for immediate consumption! (012)
It is a very good topic, although my browser failed to open your RDF
document. But your slogan: ''Everything is a sign'' is too strong. In fact,
this crucial subject, a mostly significant issue for whole knowledge
technology as the semantic systems (1), was discussed some years ago. After
testing the feel of the SW and OntoLog Forum communities, I posted the
outlines to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign (the nature of
signs); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_meaning (the nature of
meaning). To my surprise, it is still there, without corrupting: (013)
''The nature of signs and symbols and significations, their definition,
elements, and types, is mainly established by Aristotle, Augustine, and
Aquinas. According to these classic sources, significance is a relationship
between two sorts of things: signs (the signifier) and the kinds of things
(the signified) they signify (intend, express or mean), where one term
necessarily causes something else to come to the mind. Distinguishing
natural signs and conventional signs, the traditional theory of signs sets
the following threefold partition of things:
1.. There are things that are just things, not any sign at all;
2.. There are things that are also signs of other things (as natural signs
of the physical world and mental signs of the mind);
3.. There are things that are always signs, as languages (natural and
artificial) and other cultural nonverbal symbols, as documents, money,
ceremonies, and rites.
Thus there are things which may act as signs without any respect to the
human agent (the things of the external world, all sorts of indications,
evidences, symptoms, and physical signals), there are signs which are always
signs (the entities of the mind as ideas and images, thoughts and feelings,
constructs and intentions); and there are signs that have to get their
signification (as linguistic entities and cultural symbols). So, while
natural signs serve as the source of signification, the human mind is the
agency through which signs signify naturally occurring things, such as
objects, states, qualities, quantities, events, processes, or relationships.
Human language and discourse, communication, philosophy, science, logic,
mathematics, poetry, theology, religion (as well as SW technology) are only
some of fields of human study and activity where grasping the nature of
signs and symbols and patterns of signification may have a decisive value.'' (014)
Azamat Abdoullaev (015)
(1)http://www.igi-global.com/books/details.asp?id=7641 (016)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@xxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: ANN: Ontology of signs (017)
Hi all (018)
I've kept off the various recent and ongoing discussions such as 'How do
you deprecate URIs' and the like, to focus on semiotic aspects of this
debate.
As said for quite a while, we need an ontology of signs. You can see a
first cut of it at http://www.lingvoj.org/semio.rdf
Very early release intended to attract feedback, criticisms and
questions. Certainly too raw for immediate consumption!
Needs examples (TBD soon).
Some general background thoughts at
http://universimmedia.blogspot.com/2008/07/everything-is-sign.html (019)
Feel free to send off-list comments, either by mail or by commenting on
the blog, rather than opening another endless off-topic thread here :-) . (020)
Thanks for your attention (021)
Bernard (022)
-- (023)
*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
----------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
----------------------------------------------------
Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail: bernard.vatant@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bernard.vatant@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Blog: Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/> (024)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (025)
********************************************************************
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.
******************************************************************** (026)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (028)
|