Rich:
This does fall in the category of language games.
What I mean by “re-negotiation of meaning” has to do
with the use and interpretation of schemas or types or classes in ontologies.
Party-A and Party-B choose a schema (or set of type or ontology classes) to use
to exchange data; they’ve in a sense “negotiated and agreed to a
contract”. If data created by Party-A per the schema (or types or
ontology classes) is sent to Party-B and Party-B thinks the data “looks
weird” or is erroneous or has some other issue, then Part-B obviously has
a different interpretation of the schema (or types or ontology classes) than
Party-A. “Re-negotiation of meaning” means either aligning their
interpretations of the schema (or type or ontology class) or revising the
schema (etc) to accommodate the different “meaning needs” of
Party-A and Party-B.
A simple analogy in natural language use is someone from Chicago
saying to me they “want a pop”. I may not understand what they’re
really asking for so after some “negotiation” I realize they’re
asking for a carbonated beverage – what I’d call a “soda”.
After the “negotiation”, we both then know what “pop”
means (and the context in which it’s likely used.)
The trick is how to enable data-interoperable software systems to
do this quickly and easily.
Bill
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:47 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology development method
Hi Ferenc,
You wrote:
The key, imo, is finding a way
to make the
re-negotiation of meaning in the
SW quick and easy
Could you expound your thoughts on this issue? How
can meaning be renegotiated quickly, and who is doing the negotiation?
It seems that your description has to do with language
games which John Sowa has mentioned before several times, but for which
none of us have come up with good examples to help define, analyze or validate
the language game concept.
I am interested in using strongly typed objects and
classes to minimize (i.e. factor) the process of substituting plausible
uniquely identified things in the beginning of search, and bind them to
validated objects through the And/Or/Not tree of an object designation
_expression_.
Your thoughts on language games and the concept of
capturing and analyzing them are appreciated.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:34 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology development method
You may want to read this
http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/
Regards
F
----- Original Message -----
From: "Burkett, William [USA]"
<burkett_william@xxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] "
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology development method
I'll jump on this bandwagon, too, concerning the social
dimension of
ontologies and ontology development; it's an important
and underserved (imo)
area of exploration. In fact, I'll expand it by
pointing out that human
languages (natural languages as well as artificial
languages) are
socially-constructed mechanisms. The meaning of
languages is a kind of
"social contract" (apologies to Rousseau) that
is continually being tuned,
corrected, and re-negotiated. Data, schemas, and
ontologies are all
languages of which this is true. The key, imo, is
finding a way to make the
re-negotiation of meaning in the SW quick and easy.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Tolk, Andreas
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 12:45 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Ontology development method
I also agree with this point of view.
Ontologies are a great way to understand such differences
in
conceptualization, in particular as they are formal
specifications of
conceptualizations. I like the work of Wache on how to
build federations
from such different conceptual views on a problem. The
two papers I normally
recommend are H. Wache, T. Vogele, U. Visser, H.
Stuckenschmidt, G.
Schuster, H. Neumann, and S. Hübner, "Ontology-based
Integration of
Information -- a Survey of Existing Approaches," Proceedings
of the
IJCAI-Workshop Ontologies and Information Sharing,
Seattle, WA: 2001, pp.
108-117 and H. Wache, "Towards Rule-Based Context
Transformation in
Mediators," in Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Engineering
Federated Information Systems (EFIS), 1999, pp. 107-122.
One of the main advantages of ontological approaches is
that they make such
differences explicit and make them applicable to
engineering solutions as
well. The mediation between viewpoints to avoid
conceptual misalignments of
contributions to an overarching solution is something we
see everywhere
popping up, be it service oriented architecture and model
based
developments.
Best wishes
Andreas
==================== ;-)
Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA, USA
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Jim Rhyne
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 2:36 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology development method
Hi Doug,
I very much agree with your point of view. A good many of
the difficulties
encountered in projects that I have consulted on are
rooted in
misunderstanding
and hidden agendas. The ontology is not just a technical
tool, it is also a
social
and organizational tool.
One of the challenges of this approach, however, is the
need for multiple
ontologies and a way to link them semantically. The
different segments of a
large enterprise will develop individual terms and
phrases that they use to
communicate within the segment. In my experience, there
is little hope of
getting all segments to agree on a single set of terms.
But, it appears to
be
often possible to get agreement on a mapping and sharing
of concepts,
provided
there is a crisp and unambiguous definition of the
concepts.
There is a small amount of technical work in the area of
shared ontologies
and
ontology mapping that I am familiar with. Can you and
others on this forum
Suggest additional sources?
Thanks,
Jim Rhyne
Software Renovation Consulting
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Doug McDavid
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 3:55 AM
To: paoladimaio10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology development method
Hi Paola --
I'd like to pick up on your point about the social
aspects of this
field. Over the years, I have gravitated more over
to the social
system aspect of enterprise, and I feel strongly that
precision of
language, and understanding of language distinctions, is
a critical
element of lubricating the social side of enterprise
(better
understanding, disambiguation to everyone's relief,
semantic boundary
objects that allow different disciplines and practices to
work
together, etc.).
I haven't found much appetite for this kind of discussion
on this
particular list. I follow the discussions
here quite closely,
because I think ontology has the potential to become an
important wave
of future development of business systems. I would
probably be making
more than the occasional contribution if there were more
interest in
these social aspects. Maybe someone receiving this
knows of a
discussion going on elsewhere. I admit I haven't
done due diligence
on Ning, LinkedIn, Google Groups, etc.
If there's any interest at all, I could be encouraged to
do some
diligence, and possibly set up a discussion group on this
topic.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Doug
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Paola Di Maio
<paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> John
>
>>
>> I think that *ideology* is the main obstacle
that has strangled
>> innovation in the SW.
>
> what I noticed is that much of the thinking (setting
aside the ideology
> point) is done by computer scientists
> while in my view sw challenges are not striclty CS
per se
>
> Information Management dont particularly count as
scientist either,
>
> On top of that 'social 'science is not taken into
account
>
> a bit like having a team of only civil engineers,
and no architects/
> planners
>
> while its' true that infrastructure is really really
important, we would
not
> want our cities to be
> run and governed solely by plumbers and electricians
>
>
>
>>
>> If anybody whispers that JSON might be better
>> than RDF, the SW thought police immediately
exile them from the empire.
>
> do you have evidence to that effect?
>
>
>
> But just compare two groups that both started at
Stanford around the
same
> time:
>
> Agreed that comparing google with protege to measure
success of the latter
> does not seem fair
> its a different ball game, isnt it ?:-)
>
>
>
>
> PDM
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
Doug McDavid
dougmcdavid@xxxxxxxxx
916-549-4600
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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