To: | "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Sat, 6 Jun 2009 07:51:49 -0700 |
Message-id: | <8686F707D69C4DC09E445E20C1EFDE42@rhm8200> |
see below
Dick McCullough
http://mkrmke.org ----- Original Message -----
From: <ra33@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> 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. > >
> 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). RHM>
It may require a lot of knowledge, but surely
not all knowledge.
You need to identify and name the knowledge.
mKR provides one way to do that:
at context { sentence;
};
Just think of the context as a large footnote -- required for all sentences. >
> Sincerely, > Rob Akscyn > ******************** > SB> >> >> 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". >> >> 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. RHM>
I think John Sowa has the right idea -- use
controlled natural
language.
mKR is my attempt to create an
appropriate language. >> >> 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 (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] "Amy Winehouse is the apotheosis and nadir of post-modern femininity"., ra33 |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] FW: Guo's word senses and Foundational Ontologies, Patrick Cassidy |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] "Amy Winehouse is the apotheosis and nadir of post-modern femininity"., ra33 |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] "Amy Winehouse is the apotheosis and nadir of post-modern femininity"., John F. Sowa |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |