Hi All,
I'm new and so terribly out of context. But a thought about the nice letter
enclosed below: (01)
The sentence (02)
"The point being, as a sentance, one infers a context in which to interpret it." (03)
(from the letter) would seem to be a good case in point, that is: that virtually
all sentences require considerable context in order for readers/listerners
to be able to reasonably interpret their meaning. [I acknowledge this is an
obvious point about which all of us would most likely agree] (04)
But what seems a key issue is the boundary between the text/manuscript
in which it appears and the greater sphere of all of one's knowledge. As a
default, I think it is reasonable for most readers to expect authors to do much
of the heavy lifting in this regard and supply as much context as possible
(thereby making it more clear what they are really trying to say) and reduce
the 'exercise for the reader' to a modest amount. [Granted, cross-word puzzles
and other intellectual puzzles are deliberately coaxing us to think]. (05)
My belief is this is a critical issue, for if authors are not held to high
standards
for providing sufficient context, automated interpretation systems are just as
likely (and I say more likely) to thrash around as us humans might. For similar
reasons, publication reviewers (program committees, journal reviewers,...) often
go to great lengths to prod authors to write well enough to have their text be
somewhat self-sufficient. (06)
So my bottom line is that without some 'threshold of quality' (yet to be
defined)
that provides some assurances the text is of an 'interpretable sort',
(because it provides sufficient context to support that) then we
simply drown in a host of outlier examples of the well-known kinds
("The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" --> "The wine is good, but the
meat is
rotten"). (07)
When the gap becomes a chasm (trying to use all of society's collected knowledge
to interpret single sentences, the problem becomes too intractable (I submit). (08)
Sincerely,
Rob Akscyn
******************** (09)
> Ontobloggers
>
> Following up on my suggestion last week of a paradigm shift:
>
> a) I'm not claiming I know what it is.
>
> b) In the unlikely event that I work it out, it will probably be by
> accident, and I won't notice I've done it, so someone will need to point it
> out to me.
>
> However, my suggestion revolved round the question of what knowledge one
> brings (and might be expected to bring) to understanding a statement. For a
> worked example, I return to "Amy Winehouse is the apotheosis and nadir of
> post-modern femininity".
>
> Firstly, the vocabulary "nadir", "apotheosis", "post-modern" imply that this
> is intended more for an intelligensia than popular consumtion. Secondly, the
> reference to Amy Winehouse - a singer feted as much for the excesses of her
> lifestyle as her singing - situates the discusion at least on the edges of
> popular culture. The word "post-modern" rings alarm bells that is probably
> the strapline of an article by a member of the chattering classes - a member
> with pretentions of gravitas - bemoaning the state of contemporary culture.
>
> That is, the vocabulary and choice of subject suggest a popular article on
> semiotics, possibly following the heretage of Bathes' Mythologies, and
> probably published in a week-end edition of a (UK) broadsheet. (Ironically,
> most broad sheets are now published as tabloids).
>
> The point being, as a sentance, one infers a context in which to interpret
> it. This particular context may be specific to the UK - for example, a UK
> reader might image it originating from someone like Will Self. One would
> also infer that an attempt to evaluate the truth of the claim by formal
> logic would be rather pointless, since the object of such a discussion is
> the discussion itself and the relationships it forms between elements of
> contemporary culture.
>
> Obviously, the formalization and evaluation of such a phrase is outside the
> remit of this forum. However, the fact that there is an outside implies that
> the scope needs demarkating in some way. Historically, this seems to have
> been done by insisting on the properties of formal representation, that is,
> what is considered to be an ontology. However, for external comprehension,
> that boundary also needs to be articulated in terms of the relation between,
> on one hand, formalisations which (confusingly) use natural language terms
> as labels and on the other, natural language, which does not have a formal
> semantics, and, in fact, thrives on ambigity, allusion and connotation.
>
> Having this distinction between ontologies and natural language clear
> expressed would help enormously in set the right expectations about what can
> be delivered by the semantic wed in general, and ontologies in particular.
> Over to you.
>
> Sean Barker
> Bristol, UK
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|